Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that when the Government made their ill-judged Statement last year, all Scotland believed that the Scottish regiments would retain their tartans, cap badges and, where appropriate, their hackles? Why is it that they now all have to wear the same tartan and cap badge? This is causing great disappointment both in Scotland and among the various battalions. Are the Government going to support fully the regimental museums and the regimental headquarters of all the battalions?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I declare a family interest. My father served in the 4th Battalion of a multi-battalion regiment, the Gordon Highlanders, which has sadly now ceased to exist. During his service as a non-commissioned officer he was seconded to the Argyll and Sutherland and to the London Scottish. Such things happened even in those days. We all recognise that there are strong arguments for multi-battalion regiments and the flexibility that they give.
	I should like to ask two questions. Can there be a degree of flexibility which recognises that battalions within a multi-battalion regiment have there own continuing local connections and traditions? Should we not attach considerable importance to that?
	I understand that recruitment has been falling in Scotland for some time—indeed, it did so before this decision. Are figures available on the number of Fijians now serving in Scottish infantry regiments? Is it something that should concern the Scots in terms of local traditions and how recruitment is changing?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's last point, it is true that in Scotland a significant proportion of certain regiments contain people from other nations. We should recognise the tremendous impact that these people have made. They are high quality people who have added to the capability of these regiments.
	As to the noble Lord's first point, I am grateful to him for pointing out that there is recognition of the need for this change. There is a recognition in many parts of the House that the decision has been taken to eliminate the arms plot in order to bring greater efficiency to our Army and to ensure that the battalions that we have are available for service and that the disruption to the lives of our soldiers inherent in the arms plot can be removed.
	Once one accepts that the arms plot is no longer to be, the need for multi-battalion regiments follows. The question therefore has been how the Army can be organised to ensure that we have the resources to address the pinch points we have experienced in the expeditionary nature of the operations we have had to undertake. We are making the investment in those areas—logisticians, intelligence people and so on—and we are re-balancing the Armed Forces to do this. Our Army is in fact bigger than it was in 1997.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, after the amalgamation of the 91st and 93rd in the 1980s to form the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, for 20 years the officers found it difficult to speak to each other. What plans does the noble Lord have to make the next integration easier?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the Africa agenda for the G8 summit includes specific actions to help build peace and create security across Africa, to help improve governance and build effective states, to improve the opportunities for good health and education and to tackle AIDS, to create opportunities for growth, including capturing the gains from trade and to increase resources for Africa through more aid, debt relief and improved aid effectiveness.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend not think that the Government have set their sights very high in respect of the money that needs to be raised? What is plan B if all of the other nations do not come up with their share?

Baroness Northover: My Lords, following on from the earlier Question, could the Minister enlighten us about which protective subsidies might be removed by the G8 nations at the summit?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Prison Service only recently asked governors whether they should continue to provide one free newspaper for every 10 prisoners to help them maintain contact with outside events. Some prisoners buy their own newspapers. All have access to television, the majority in their own cells. The revised instruction, issued in May 2005, reflected doubts about the effectiveness of the old policy. While giving governors greater flexibility, it lists some key factors to consider in deciding whether to continue the current provision.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the £1.2 million is a global figure, but it will be at the discretion of local governors to decide how best to spend money that they would otherwise have spent on providing one free paper per 10 prisoners in terms of satisfying their information demands. It needs to be understood that since the old policy was introduced some 15 years ago, there has been a massive increase in the availability of in-cell televisions and televisions in general association areas.
	It is also thought that in some prisons spending may increase as prison governors and staff decide to target better the budget they have available for newspapers in the prison.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to make a Statement dealing with the Government's intention to implement Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. In order to ensure that people accused of serious frauds do not escape justice, we propose to implement this provision for trial without jury in serious and complex fraud cases. It would be subject to judicial safeguards.
	The Government have decided that in the autumn they will seek affirmative resolutions from both Houses of Parliament in order to implement Section 43. Section 43 will enable serious and complex fraud trials to be conducted by a judge sitting alone without a jury. The provision can operate only where the judge is satisfied that the length or complexity of the trial is likely to make it so burdensome upon the jury that the interests of justice require it, subject to the Lord Chief Justice's approval in each case.
	The Government gave a commitment to consult further when the 2003 Act was passed. That commitment was made good at a seminar held in January this year at which Opposition spokesmen, the judiciary, prosecuting authorities and the legal profession were among those represented. I am placing a record of the seminar proceedings in the Library of the House.
	A protocol for dealing with lengthy trials, which was issued by the Lord Chief Justice on 22 March 2005, emphasises the need for robust and well informed case management to enable the court to focus on the real issues. It is hoped that this approach will contribute towards reducing the length of trials. The Government consider, however, that better case management will not of itself be sufficient to confine the duration of the most complex serious fraud trials within reasonable bounds or prevent such trials imposing an intolerable burden upon the jury.
	This provision is not part of a general assault on jury trial. The Government are in favour of jury trial in the vast majority of cases, where it will remain appropriate. To put it into perspective, there are around 40,000 jury trials in England and Wales annually, and this provision will affect a handful—perhaps 15 to 20.
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, when I heard that the noble and learned Lord was going to make the Statement this afternoon, I experienced more than just a pang of sympathy for him.
	When the noble and learned Lord first came to your Lordships' House, he was a lion in support of the principles of human rights. I remember, in particular, that he played a very important role in the development of the European Convention on Human Rights.
	How disappointed the noble and learned Lord must, therefore, be to have participated in a government who, during the past two and a half years, have engaged in the dilution, in so many different respects, of the rights of the defendant. This Statement is just another example.
	During the debate on the Criminal Justice Act, which was passed in November 2002, the following exchanges took place in another place between Mr Blunkett, the then Home Secretary, and Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on these matters. Mr Blunkett said:
	"First, in moving to a single judge sitting alone we are prepared to have to secure the consent of the Lord Chief Justice. Secondly, we are prepared to agree that we will not implement the proposals set out in Clause 42, as amended, while we seek an improved way forward that does not rely on a single judge sitting alone.
	"During the debate, proposals in relation to how specialist advice and support might be offered have been made, including measures drawing on a specialist range of expertise for a jury. On Second Reading and again on Report, I said that I was not against looking at such measures, so I find no difficulty tonight in offering the opportunity to the two main Opposition parties working with the Attorney-General, the Serious Fraud Office and the senior judiciary to take a further look at how that might be taken forward. We are able to look at that in relation to the SFO in a way that Roskill could not. In that light, I will not press for implementation of the clause. I am prepared to offer an affirmative resolution, should that be required".
	Then Mr Hughes said:
	"Is it the implication of his remarks that, as a result of the Bill passing into law tonight, there will not be any serious fraud trial by a single judge in England and Wales"?
	Mr Blunkett said:
	"I am prepared to give that undertaking. It is part of the agreement that we will retain the clause, but move forward towards looking at the alternative solutions that I have mentioned and that could be incorporated in one or other of the two measures that have either been consulted on or will come before the House in the Queen's Speech. That safeguard is appropriate. I give a binding undertaking that we will follow that agreement".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/11/03; col. 1027–28.]
	Where is this consultation? The noble and learned Lord referred to a seminar that took place in January. I recall attending the latter part of it, because I had to get up very early on a cold morning in Shropshire to catch the train. A large number of other interests were represented, but at no stage was this held out by the noble and learned Lord to be a consultation.
	A consultation as I understand it involves an analysis of all the options, a government document summarising that analysis and the canvassing of public opinion. That is the way the Government always consult on legal matters of this sort. Of that kind of consultation we have seen none. The Government are in clear breach of their obligations, which they gave unequivocally to another place some two years ago.
	In any case, why are the Government in a hurry? They are just about to embark on the Fraud Bill, which has, as far as I can tell at this stage, some considerable merit. It is designed to simplify the situation for juries, for the police and indeed for defendants. That should have a dramatic effect on the complexity and the length of fraud trials. Why are the Government not prepared to see what effect the Fraud Bill will have once it becomes law?
	Moreover, an inquiry has recently been launched into the famous Jubilee Line fraud case, which collapsed after vast expenditure some two months ago. That inquiry is not yet complete. Why are the Government introducing this measure before hearing the outcome of the Jubilee Line inquiry? Surely what is decided by it is absolutely germane to the whole issue of jury trials. Indeed, I would draw the noble and learned Lord's attention to an exchange which took place in another place on 7 June 2005 between Mr Jonathan Djangoly and Mrs Bridget Prentice. Mr Djangoly said:
	"We support research on juries—
	it shows that we are very open-minded about this—
	"as long as it is controlled to safeguard jury confidentiality and to avoid interference. If the Government accept the need for such research, how can they justify their intention to abolish trial by jury in fraud trials before such research has been undertaken? Is that not just another unjustified attack by the Government on people's civil liberties?
	Mrs Prentice said:
	"I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words at the beginning of his question, but I am sorry that he felt the need to go on to attack what the Government propose. He is wrong on that point. The Attorney-General has already set up a review, under Stephen Wooler, to look in detail at the Jubilee line case, how it was conducted and the effect that it has on jurors and others. I cannot comment any further on that until the review is completed, but that might be a better time to discuss whether fraud cases should be tried by jury or under Section 43 of 2003 Act".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/6/05; col. 1121.]
	What has happened between 7 June and today to change so dramatically the mind of the Government, unequivocally expressed by Mrs Prentice on 7 June? What the honourable lady said was surely absolutely the right approach; that is, to wait until Mr Wooler has reported and then to consider the matter in the light of a proper consultation.
	This is not a serious proposal; it is a politically irresponsible proposal. We should think very carefully indeed before transferring decisions which have always been made by members of the community, sitting as juries, to somebody who is a professional, paid judge. That is not our legal tradition. It cannot be the right way forward for this country.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, when jurors are asked whether they will be able to sit for two, three, six months or even longer, many say that they will not be able to give up that amount of time. However, as I hinted earlier, I am very happy to hold a briefing open to all noble Lords and present material which I hope will help noble Lords reach a decision when the orders are brought forward. I hope that the noble Lord will find that helpful.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President for setting out so clearly the wider issues, as she sees them, arising from the present situation in Europe. She has done so from her point of view, which I respect, but I will take a different approach in my intervention.
	Not since 1945 has Britain been so favourably placed to influence the future shape of Europe. Like the Lord President, I will not dwell on the rebate row, important though that is—it has, of course, been raised in part as a diversion—and valuable though it has been to this nation from the moment it was so brilliantly secured by my noble friend Lady Thatcher. However, on the present row, during the past weekend the British position appeared to be staggeringly ill-prepared and seems to have been inspired more by Lastminute.com rather than by serious policy work, preparation and insights.
	Nor am I going to harp on the Anglo-Saxon model, and the European social model, as I believe that the differences of approach are at least somewhat exaggerated by the fevered caricatures beloved of the economists, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who I am afraid is not in his place today, rightly implied yesterday. Anyway, whether we like it or not—and I do not—the concept of the UK as a low-regulation, low-tax, competitive system is rapidly being eroded as we sink daily into a mire of new regulations and higher taxes this side of the Channel as well.
	I will not even dwell on the failed constitution, which has so obviously capsized, except to allow myself this expression of some anger: three years, not to mention forests of paper, have been wasted on this flawed project. One wonders now why we should heed the advice of all the commentators—and, indeed, the Prime Minister himself—who until last week were telling us that the constitution was good for Britain and good for Europe, when the whole attempt has obviously done so much harm and has ended up not bringing the Union closer to the people, which was the insight and rightful demand of the Laaken declaration, but has taken it further away from them than ever.
	No, my Lords, let us leave the media to have their say on all these issues, as they are certainly doing at the moment. This is not a time for prolonging divisions or trading insults, although some of us have had to bear our share of those—especially a good deal of genial vituperation from the party sitting to my right. I do not want to respond in any way to that. For those of us who genuinely want to see Europe strengthened and effective in this new world, this is not a crisis—not for the people, although it may be for some governments with egg on their faces. It is a colossal opportunity for all of us. It is a time for a new vision and a new and different kind of arrangement, possibly a new treaty, in Europe.
	This is the moment when, as never before, we need creative leadership and for setting out why a new direction for the European Union is essential and why it is now possible. Why does it turn out that things we were always breezily told were not on are now on? Outdated EU thinking has been fatally holding back Europe's economic development, while Asia—the Lord President mentioned the rise of India, China and Japan—races ahead, as has the United States. Actually, the US economy remains precariously placed.
	We should proceed with reform on the basis of the following points. I want to offer a number of detailed points because this is not a time for generalities but for hard work. I am going to offer 16 points to your Lordships which I hope will do better than President Woodrow Wilson's 14 points, which did not eventually carry the day. Whether these are called, in the new spin of the Government, pro-European reform or whether they are called reform as suggested by more sceptical Europeans, does not matter a hoot because they amount to the same thing. There is not much choice except to go forward on constructive reformist lines.
	First, there must, obviously, be a fresh IGC and a new treaty which accommodates enlargement and improves on the Nice Treaty. That was full of faults, as we pointed out at the time. We need a set of rules which genuinely simplifies EU procedures and organisation, as the constitution did not. It should not be called a "constitution"—a name which utterly misleads and confuses and has caused much grief. The need is for new club rules which ease further enlargement—for instance, for Bulgaria and Romania and perhaps other Balkan candidates—and make it impossible to embrace dynamic Turkey, instead of freezing out that remarkable nation, as the present mood seems to imply. That would be quite wrong.
	Secondly, the new treaty must restore and confirm inter-governmentalism for large areas of Union activity to give member states room to breathe. I refer, for example, to foreign and security policy; judicial trans-national co-operation, which is going ahead satisfactorily without any treaties; social policy, which is far more sensitive and closer to people when conducted nationally instead of in general and stratospheric terms; the bulk of farm support; all fiscal and, for those lucky enough not to be trapped in the euro-zone, monetary issues; and all areas where the EU fails to add real effectiveness and convenience to our life and policies.
	As the OECD recently pointed out, the European Union now represents,
	"a chronic pattern of divergent activity".
	Those who want Europe to stay together will recognise and adjust to that, rather than pretend it does not exist. As former Commissioner Bolkestein urged, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, embedded in the defunct constitution, should be scrapped. He said that it is unnecessary and full of potential friction and vapid rhetoric. It has nothing to do with social dimension or improving the lot of workers throughout Europe.
	Thirdly, the Conservative approach will anchor national parliaments at the heart of the EU law-making and decision-making process. The capsized constitution protocol talked of involving national parliaments, but returning the final say-so on the suitability of new powers to the central institutions. That was called the "yellow card". We said from the start that there should have been a red card, as did many others, including leading members of the Labour Party in the other place. If a group of national parliaments objects to new or existing legislation, it should be withdrawn or repealed. That is essential if the EU is to modernise and decentralise.
	Fourthly, the EU Commission should lose its absolute monopoly right of initiative for new legislation and share it with member states.
	Fifthly, the idea of a five-year Council presidency—two times two and a half years—should be withdrawn and replaced not by six months, which I agree is much too short, but by a one-year rotating presidency, which will give some opportunity to the smaller countries.
	Sixthly, speaking of smaller states, especially the new entrants, we should adhere to the principle of a more equal Europe in which smaller nations have more say and gain more respect for their views and gain freedom from bullying by the bigger states. It always used to be Britain's role to protect the smaller states—we were the friend of the smaller nations of Europe; indeed, we helped found some of them. Frankly, I find it very disappointing—I would even say appalling—that over the weekend the Prime Minister and his advisers were somehow manoeuvred on to the wrong side in this respect and ended up being criticised by those such as Poland who should be our friends.
	Seventhly, the concept of a Europe of different directions should be welcomed as a realisation of a flexible Europe in the network age—a genuine partnership of interdependent nations in a community which values differences as strengths and not as weaknesses. The Commission and the European Court of Justice must be encouraged to understand that these are the new imperatives, as opposed to the demands of the old hierarchical and over-centralised system.
	Eighthly, the existence of separate groupings in no way validates the concept of a two-speed Europe, which is a nonsense. The implication that there is a single integration goal for the nations of Europe, at which all will eventually arrive, must be, in our view, firmly rejected. Anyway, it is the case that many of Europe's most dynamic economies are on the outer circuit. The core, if it is formed, will be the very slow part indeed of the whole structure.
	Ninthly, the powers of the central institutions must be much more clearly circumscribed and the acquis communautaire must be systematically combed through and heavily reduced in line with modern circumstances.
	Tenthly, the treaty-embodied laws of the Union will, of course, in many cases, as with all treaty-embodied law, take precedence, but that must be adjudged on a case basis, as hitherto. There will be and should be exceptions, as in the case of the German constitutional law. That is quite different from trying to enshrine the supremacy of Union laws in a higher legal constitution, as the draft constitution tried to do. The ECJ, as I say, must be impartial in those matters.
	My eleventh point is that we all know that the common fisheries policy has failed. It should have no place in a new treaty of Europe. As for the common agriculture policy, which the Lord President mentioned, we all agree that it requires further reform. It is quite ironic and odd that M. Chirac has now well and truly reopened the matter by reopening the issue of the rebate. I believe that the Prime Minister, thinking quickly, was right to link it to CAP reform. Yesterday some noble Lords were saying that that would take a long time, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, reminded the House yesterday with her usual acumen, the World Trade Organisation's moment of truth is coming up extremely fast at the end of this year in Hong Kong and urgent decisions will be required before then. This is not a matter on which we can sit around.
	My twelfth point is that the reinstatement of national democratic control over an extensive range of competences is necessary to halt competence creep, about which we all know, and to enthrone the principle that democracy occurs in nation states. The European Parliament does a good job scrutinising the Commission, but it cannot connect to the thread of democracy that runs up from the grassroots via national legislatures such as ours. Greater powers for the European Parliament are not the answer to the so-called democratic deficit.
	My thirteenth point is that the practice of trans-national co-operation at informal and NGO levels—between the professions—should be vastly encouraged.
	My fourteenth point is that defence and foreign affairs co-operation should be defined in practical and organisational terms. There should be room for ad hoc coalitions, pan-European concerted moves in some cases where desirable and task-specific, intensified compatibility of defence equipment, but plenty of space for wider coalitions than the common foreign and security policy can hope to mobilise, especially when managing affairs with the great, but vulnerable, superpower, America, which needs real friends and partners and not querulous rivals.
	We should reject absolutely the language and instruments of super-bloc or superpower rivalry as being completely out of touch with the needs of the network world. There is no point in trying to rescue the common foreign and security policy. As Mr Bolkestein also points out in an article in the Herald Tribune, it is an illusion and one that fails notably to protect or to promote our interests. It is certainly a weak and inadequate "partner"—hardly the right word—in the trans-Atlantic relationship.
	My fifteenth point is that new forms of regular accountability to national parliaments certainly need to be developed. One idea is that a senior Minister should head UKRep and report back to the Commons and to your Lordships fortnightly.
	My sixteenth point is that referendums on future constitutional changes by treaty, as attempted so furtively in the rejected constitution, should be obligatory.
	Those are my 16 points. At some stage over the past two years, the Government, which in the beginning never really wanted the constitution—that is what the Prime Minister said—lost touch with the requirements of the situation and ended up with a lot of feeble red lines instead of a coherent strategy. Now they are paying the price. But it is not too late. M. Pompidou once said that Britain's three best qualities were humour, tenacity and realism. Now is the time to mobilise all three in the cause of a better Europe, which we all want to see.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his very kind words about my genial vituperation and assure him that I intend to maintain my geniality in this respect. I agree with many of his 16 points. I hope he will regard it as a compliment when I say that my overall approach to his speech is much the same as my approach to the constitutional treaty. I agree with much of it, although I have substantial hesitations about a number of matters—a bit of a curate's egg.
	I welcomed the opening speech of the Leader of the House and its strong emphasis that British foreign policy has to start with European co-operation. A strong place for Britain in Europe is the key to Britain's place in the world. Liberals, as a party and as a matter of philosophy, believe strongly in international co-operation as opposed to nationalist nostalgia or populist defence of sovereignty or subordination to American hegemony.
	We live in Europe—it is part of our unavoidable geography—and we have to start by getting on with our neighbours and ensuring that our neighbourhood is peaceful. That does not mean that we deal simply with Europe. We and our neighbours must be concerned about how we spread the peace, security and democracy that we have, thankfully, achieved over the past 60 years, not only as we have done successfully across eastern Europe, but also, as we hope to do, across south-eastern Europe and further south and further east.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, said, we have shared interests in the international rule of law, in the promotion of human rights, in global, economic and social development, in the prevention of climate change, in environmental sustainability, and in the combating of international crime, terror and the smuggling of drugs and people. None of those things can be done by Britain alone. On all of those issues, our closest partners are across the Channel and some of our most difficult negotiations are across the Atlantic. Therefore, we start by assuming that we have to make the best of European co-operation rather than the worst.
	I much regret that our Government and the governments of other western European countries have made so little of the achievement of eastern enlargement so that in both the French and the Dutch referendums resistance to Poles, Czechs, Slovaks and others was part of the "no" campaign. The failure to explain the long-term advantages of eastern enlargement to European publics was one reason for the failure.
	Further enlargement is an obligation, first, to the western Balkans and then to Bulgaria and Romania. Then we need to have a very careful debate about how much further we should go and when. In the past five years I have spent some time in Turkey. The Turks themselves are only just beginning to debate the implications of Turkish membership. Turkey's membership will be a very major step for us all. We have committed ourselves, and we should certainly not exclude Turkey, but we need to discuss the long-term implications with our publics, as well as with Turkey.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who is unfortunately not here today, has spoken about the need also to commit ourselves to Ukrainian enlargement. I had lunch the other week with someone who said "And Russia in time". After all, the population of Russia is shrinking and it will be smaller than the population of Turkey by the time it joins. We must think quite carefully about our neighbourhood and how best to stabilise it, and about the point at which we should offer being good neighbours with close relations with the European Union, rather than extending it further and further east until we reach Vladivostok.
	A number of institutional changes were clearly needed to cope with enlargement to a European Union of 25, soon to be 27, and then more. The Laeken declaration of the European Council in December 2001 set some of them out. In particular, it stressed the need to consider what powers should be returned from the European Union to national governments—the principle of subsidiarity; it asked for a short and simple text for the constitutional treaty; and it asked for a much stronger role for national parliaments. I have to say that the constitutional treaty that emerged did not fulfil all those requirements. Perhaps our two representatives on the convention who are going to speak in this debate will explain to us how we got from A, not to B, but to D or E when it came to it.
	The treaty was far too long and complex. It has a number of proposals that are necessary and desirable and that will improve the efficiency of the European Union, for example, strengthening capabilities and foreign policy, simplified voting and a smaller and simpler Commission. In passing, I have to say that it is easy to over-emphasise the subtle distinctions of different forms of qualified majority voting. The Council of Ministers does not vote very much, and votes much more often on agricultural issues than on any other single subject. There was confusion over having both a new foreign minister and a president of the council. There was clear resistance to returning any powers to national governments within the convention. The restatement of the acquis, which is the lengthy Part 3 that has led to so much rubbishing of the treaty, was a clear mistake. There was a massive misreading by those within and around the convention of the popular acceptability of what they produced, for which the Commission, the European Parliament and what, for shorthand, I shall call the "francophone elites" must share some of the blame.
	I share a good deal of Gisela Stuart's perspectives on the convention. It was captured by what I call the "Old Believers" in the European Union who believe in technocratic imposition from Brussels; that the people in the centre know best; that they are the enlightened fonctionnaires of Europe; that centralisation is the same as integration; and that the social partners—a single European social model—is what one imposes.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell, spoke a great deal about globalisation, and we have to realise that one cannot have globalisation without remote governance. We all share the problem that remote government is very hard to sell to our publics. Look at the United States, where every single presidential candidate runs against Washington because Washington represents remote government imposed upon Idaho, Texas, Arizona or wherever. We face a not dissimilar problem with Brussels. That is a problem that is going to grow under globalisation.
	It was a mistake to focus on institutions so much and on strategic priorities so little. So the right course now is to focus on what strategic priorities we need for our enlarged European Union, not on further institutional reshaping, let alone on further institutional grand designs.
	As a number of people have said, there are a number of things that can and should be implemented. We should look at our own procedures as a national parliament and our Government should be more willing to discuss their approach to the European Union with their parliamentarians. We should build closer links with British Members of the European Parliament and overcome the last of the old legacy which meant that British Members of the European Parliament saw British Members of the British Parliament as rivals and vice versa. We need to do a lot more on the reform of the Commission, and we need to strengthen the effectiveness of the instruments we have in foreign policy and defence policy.
	What should our strategic priorities be? I apologise that I do not have 16, but I have a few. Economic reform is clearly one of them. We have to go back to the Lisbon agenda and seek economic reform within a social market model. I welcome again what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said on that. We are not attempting to sell the American economic model to our European partners. I slightly regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, suggested in her speech that we are necessarily falling behind American economic growth. A number of good economists have pointed out that social choices are at stake in the different developments of the European and the United States socio-economic models. The surge of American economic growth has a great deal to do with the closing down of city centres and the opening up of shopping malls. That may not necessarily be the way that we want to go.
	The Government need to adopt a different rhetoric and tone on the Lisbon agenda, and I am glad to see that the debate on the sort of economic and social changes needed is already beginning to open in France and Germany. French commentators cannot, in most cases, bring themselves to say that there is something to learn from the British model, but they are at least saying that there is something they can learn from the Danish model.
	The stabilisation of the wider European region is clearly a major priority for those countries that have joined the European Union in the past two years and for those countries that remain outside it. Part of that stabilisation has to be continuing support for convergence and growth within the new members. We have to hope that rapid growth in Poland and elsewhere will help to lift the rest of the European economy.
	We should talk much more about our shared contribution to world order and global governance within NATO, the G8, the United Nations and a range of other global agencies.
	Then we should talk about a budget that reflects those priorities, rather than arguing simply about the budget itself. It is clear that in the immediate budget débâcle Britain was hijacked, in effect, by France and Luxembourg. It was an unnecessary row over something that did not have to be settled now. I regret that the Government did not use the phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Radice, told us about some weeks ago, which was that we should trade the British rebate against the French rebate. Those of us who have been around since the Hague summit in 1969, when the young Mr Chirac, then a French Minister, was involved in fixing the French rebate, can remember where that comes from.
	We must recognise that so long as President Chirac is there, the appalling personal relations between the French head of state and the British head of government are something we will have to cope with. I regret to say that I think that in the development of that very poor relationship in recent years the fault has been much more on the French side than on the British.
	There have been failures of leadership within most member governments. There have clearly been failures within the German and Italian Governments and, as I saw when looking at the end of the Dutch referendum campaign, also within the government of the Netherlands.
	But there have also been failures within the British Government, since 1997, as well as since 1987. We have also failed to persuade and to create a consensus around a more constructive agenda. This Government have been dysfunctional in their handling of European issues, as well as in their handling of many other matters. There has been intermittent attention. The level of investment that our Prime Minister has put into building relations with each new American administration has been far higher than has been invested in building and maintaining relations with our French, German and other partners. There have been rapid changes of Ministers for Europe, most of whom have not had significant influence. I think that there have been seven of them, although in the Commons debate last week I noticed that Jimmy Hood said that he was not sure whether there had been eight or nine of them. We certainly hope that Douglas Alexander will be given full support and that he will stay in the post long enough to begin to gain a positive reputation abroad.
	The tone and style of British government needs to change. An authoritarian executive used to lecturing the Opposition across the House of Commons tends to lecture its opponents, so to speak, abroad. We lay ourselves thus open to the caricature that we stand for free market Anglo-Saxon capitalism against a mythical single European social model.
	I bitterly regret that we have weakened our relations with the Polish Government and that all the reports from Brussels suggest that the foreign press were deeply unsympathetic to the British perspective. That is because the Government have neglected the foreign press over the past eight years instead of cultivating them and helping to persuade them that the British perspective is positive for Europe—arrogance in lecturing continental governments contrasted with timidity in facing the British press.
	Perhaps the other dimension of the failure of government policy is that the Government have failed to stand up to the Murdoch press, they have stifled Britain in Europe, they have failed to claim success for some of the great contributions we have made in Europe, including close Franco-British co-operation in defence, and have therefore left themselves in a very weak position. Any effective foreign policy must rest upon public understanding and public support at home.
	So we have a hard task ahead and a delicate task during the British presidency. We face the French illusion that you can have political union without a single market and that the British are arguing for a single market without stronger political institutions. We face entrenched suspicion in the continental press as well as by too many of our political partners. But the effort has to be made in Britain's long-term national interests by this Prime Minister, or by his successor.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, as chairman of your Lordships' European Union Committee, I shall speak mainly, but not exclusively, in that capacity. Where I have some personal observations to make, I shall indicate that I am taking off my chairman's hat. In fact, for a moment, I shall do so right away.
	For those of us involved on a day-to-day basis with European Union affairs, one can say that we live in extremely interesting times. I found it quite extraordinary that some government and Commission leaders would have us believe that after two "No" votes it was still business as usual—that things were going to continue as they were. It recalled to my mind one of the less kind remarks that Winston Churchill made about Stanley Baldwin when he said that he was a man who occasionally stumbled on the truth but would immediately pick himself up and hurry on as if nothing had happened.
	Yesterday the House—I now put back on my chairman's hat—heard a Statement on the European Council. I was rather amused by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the idea of linking the United Kingdom abatement with the reform of the CAP in the Council was not embraced until our commissioner in Brussels telephoned the Prime Minister to suggest it. Perhaps our commissioner in Brussels had read the excellent report of the sub-committee of the noble Lord, Lord Radice—I am delighted to see him in his place—on the Future Financing of the European Union, which was published as long ago as early March. Among its conclusions, it states:
	"We also think that, so long as the predominant weight of the CAP in the budget continues, the United Kingdom abatement is justified. Only when the CAP has been further reformed would it be sensible to consider a Generalised Corrective Mechanism.
	We believe the Government's insistence on the rebate is entirely legitimate in the context of an inadequately reformed CAP. We urge the Government to persuade other Member States of the logic of this position".
	Well, maybe the Prime Minister read that report too. Anyway, that is what we said. I do not think that we were the first ever to say it, but you certainly heard that in this Chamber from the noble Lord, Lord Radice, well before you heard it from Downing Street.
	Perhaps I may take off my hat once again. I must do so because I have to assure members of my committee that I am not implicating them in some of my remarks, although I think that on this point they probably would agree with me. I just have not had a chance to check with them. I want to express my profound concern that, among the apparent consequences of the French and Dutch "No" votes and the row over the budget, there is the possibility of a slowing down, if not a total blocking, of the enlargement process. An enormous amount of time and effort has been expended by accession countries to meet the myriad requirements of membership, and they have done it very well. Why should their expectations now be undermined because of some clear failures of leadership among some important existing members of the European Union?
	As has already been noted, successive British governments have been enthusiastic champions of enlargement, not least this government. I urge the Government not to let the momentum of enlargement die. Nothing less than the future security of Europe could be at stake. So I was quite comforted by what the Lord President had to say on the matter a little while ago.
	Yesterday was quite a European day in your Lordships' House as we also debated, on a Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, a key aspect of European Union policy; namely, the Hague programme and other justice and home affairs matters. I want to take the opportunity—I could not yesterday because I was sitting on the Woolsack—to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, all of whom chaired inquiries that formed the basis of the debate and all of whom spoke so eloquently in it.
	There is no need for me to reiterate the work that the European Union Select Committee will be undertaking during the presidency since I did that at some length when I spoke during the debate on the humble Address. Suffice it to say that all seven sub-committees, on which more than 70 of your Lordships work so hard, will be engaged throughout the presidency in holding the Government to account on important issues of policy that affect the lives of all citizens.
	Since the Lord President referred to deregulation, I should remind your Lordships that our Select Committee is currently engaged in an extensive inquiry into how we can achieve better and less regulation. That report will be published before the Summer Recess.
	The presidency places specific obligations on the host Parliament. We will, jointly with the Commons, be hosting the COSAC meeting of the European committees of the national Parliaments, where these committees focus on exchanging best practice on holding governments to account. Secondly, there will be held here, jointly organised by the Lords and the Commons, a series of other subject based inter-parliamentary meetings within the framework agreed by the Conference of Speakers. In your Lordships' House the responsibility for those meetings also falls on our EU committees because of the focus of the events.
	With the beginning of the presidency only 10 days away, we, as members of the legislature, must recognise that whatever decisions may be taken about the constitution—or perhaps I may say "treaty" because I share the dislike of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, of the word constitution—the treaty, the budget or any of the other high-profile policy issues confronting the presidency, the ordinary day-to-day scrutiny work of EU business must go on, both here and in the other national Parliaments.
	That work serves a vital constitutional purpose, being this House's chosen mechanism to substitute for the detailed discussion of EU legislative texts on the Floor of the House. But it is more than just that. This work is also a contribution to the transparency in EU matters that all sides of the House, I am sure, wish to see strengthened.
	Our House does not go so far as the Danish Parliament in having a dedicated team of staff to answer questions from the public about the impact of EU legislation on their daily lives. But I suggest that we need some mechanism or process of that sort. We might do well to look at Ireland's permanent National Forum on Europe, which is also admiringly described as a kind of travelling circus that pitches up in cities and towns across Ireland with a cast of MPs, MEPs, EU officials and academics to listen to the public and answer their questions on what EU legislation is all about and what its impact is or is likely to be.
	For the moment, however, it is the results of your Lordships' hard work in scrutinising, analysing and reporting on EU legislation, all of which work is freely available to the public on the website, that forms this contribution to transparent debate. Here, I pay tribute to the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and his commissioners, including the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, one of our sub-committee chairs, who have recommended improvements to the website that I know chime very well with initiatives already under way by officials of the House.
	What has befallen the treaty has among its direct consequences one of particular importance to our Parliament. I refer to the treaty's proposed mechanism for early warning on subsidiarity. For those unfamiliar with what was proposed, the idea was that if one-third of the chambers of national parliaments objected to a legislative proposal on the grounds of subsidiarity, the Commission or other body initiating the legislation would be obliged to think again.
	Our Select Committee thoroughly examined that so-called "yellow card" mechanism and determined that it was an important proposal with much to commend it. We also concluded—I quote from paragraph 25 of the report—that,
	"even if the Constitutional Treaty does not enter into force, the provisions relating to national parliaments and to subsidiarity can and should provide a stimulus to greater and more effective scrutiny by all national parliaments in the EU".
	The European Council has concluded that a period of reflection is needed. That is eminently sensible. But reflection should not mean inactivity. Treaty or no treaty, national parliaments have a duty continually to strengthen and improve their scrutiny of the European Union and their effectiveness in holding Ministers to account. If proposals in the treaty will assist this, and if their implementation does not require treaty change, we should press on. In my view, the subsidiarity yellow card mechanism falls clearly into that category and national parliaments should continue to work to set the system up. The House might see the practicality of entrusting the operation of the mechanism in this House to the EU Select Committee as a logical extension of its scrutiny work.
	I note that the Government have stated that they would welcome national parliaments entering into effective collaboration envisaged by the treaty, whether or not it ever comes into force. Although my committee's report has not received a government response, I hope that the Lord President will today be able to give a steer that such a course would be welcome.
	There are some caveats to that. First, without the constitutional treaty, the yellow card provisions cannot be binding on anyone. Yet I believe that it would be clearly in line with the stated determination of the Commission and, in particular, of Commissioner Wallström, who is in charge of relations with national parliaments, to secure greater engagement with the citizens, for such a mechanism to be in place and for the Commission to co-operate fully with it. Should a formal mechanism other than a treaty change be needed, an inter-institutional agreement might do the trick. But the key would be for the Commission to state clearly that if one-third of national parliamentary chambers objected to a legislative proposal on subsidiarity grounds, it would reconsider it and, on the basis of both qualitative and quantitative analysis, give detailed reasons for proceeding with it or not.
	Secondly, information will need to be made available to national parliaments. Under the protocol on national parliaments appended to the Treaty of Amsterdam, provision is made for that, and our Government does a very good job in discharging their responsibilities. But the constitutional treaty went further, requiring the Commission also to send its papers direct to national parliaments. However, there is no need for a treaty base to require that. Again, in the spirit of openness and transparency, the Commission could and should just do it.
	For all those reasons, in the spirit of what the treaty had to say about enhancing the role of national parliaments, those parliaments should continue the work already begun on strengthening parliamentary scrutiny of the EU and of their governments' roles in making European Union legislation. This House should play a leading role in that.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, made a speech of great importance. It was perceptive and possessed considerable profundity. I do not agree with his final conclusions, for reasons that I shall give at the end of my short remarks, but he asked the important question that has been raised by the events of the past two weeks in the European Union—what is the purpose of Europe now in these early years of the 21st century?
	The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, was right to say that the origins of the European Union lay in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. I became a passionate pro-European out of the fact that my father was in the First World War and I went off to the Second World War. The duty of Europe was to find a way of avoiding the ultimate catastrophe of a third great European world war. One of the achievements of the European Community, although it was not alone in contributing to it, was to deal with that problem and to create a European union with the reconciliation of Germany and France at its heart. It made great European wars inconceivable.
	Now, of course, the younger generation—my grandson's generation—love listening to the stories of the Second World War, but for them it does not have any resonance in terms of the present purposes of being part of the European Community. It is against that background, which the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, sketched out vividly, that we must look at the events of the past week or so and at the European Union summit that has just ended. It was, no doubt, a dismal and rancorous affair, but it would be wrong to treat it too tragically. In my own modest time as a Commissioner, I lived through several summits which seemed just as bad as the one that has just taken place. Then came the dawn, and the Union had to carry on and search for sensible compromises.
	As the Lord President said, the Government face for the next few months the heavy and critical responsibility of chairing the European Council, at the same time as being the chairman of the G8, and have a priceless opportunity to contribute to that search for a way forward out of recent events in the European Union. For the Prime Minister, with his considerable skills, it is the chance to move on from Iraq and to seek to restore Britain's role at the heart of policy-making in the European Union, as he has frequently told us. There is no doubt that the present crisis in Europe is one of more than usual gravity.
	That is not due to the row between Britain and France over the CAP. I agree with other noble Lords about that. That row is old hat in the European Union—we have been that way many times, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, that the CAP remains a major distortion within the economic affairs of the European Union. But it is important to see it in perspective and those troubles between Britain and France are not at the heart of the problems that face us. The grave problems are the much more important implications of the results of the referendums in France and the Netherlands over the proposed constitutional treaty.
	It was a profound mistake ever to dignify with the title of a "constitution" this series of treaty amendments—that is what we are dealing with—designed to make a union of 25 and more members operate more effectively. This grandiose piece of hype by the political elites of Europe has revealed the unacceptable gap that has been allowed to grow between the government of Europe in its various institutional forms and the citizen of Europe. Finding constructive ways to fill that gap is the difficult challenge for the self-imposed period of reflection on Europe's institutions that lies ahead.
	Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, that that period of reflection should probably be prolonged—and I hope that it will be profound, because that is at the heart of the problem that faces us. It especially involves looking for ways to enhance the role both of national parliaments and the European Parliament in European legislation. As my noble friend Lord Wallace said, it is appalling that the national parliaments and the European Parliament should have had such bad relations. In the days after I returned from Brussels, I argued that it would be far better if the European Parliament were to build on the basis of containing within its ranks members of national parliaments who carried real influence back in their national parliaments. But now that is all water under the bridge.
	Now there is a real challenge to enhance the role of national parliaments. Again, I listened with interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, about the work of the European Union Select Committee on which I was glad to be one of his humble rank and file for a year or two. That work may well provide the type of model for ways forward to improve the relationship between the citizen and, through the national parliaments, the link with the various institutions of the European Community, which must closely involve new forms of partnership and the workings of the European Parliament.
	There is also a need to deal with the Byzantine lack of transparency of the proceedings of the Council of Ministers. That is an old issue which has now become urgent and I can see no reason why the important meetings of the Council of Ministers, which is the ultimate legislative body of the European Union, should not be open to the public, instead of having to depend, at the end of the day, upon these bizarre midnight national briefings which help greatly to divide the nations of Europe, rather than to unite them.
	With the abandonment of the ratification of the treaty, there is room for making steady progress, with incremental changes in the mean time. I am an old Fabian who believes that there is much room for the Fabian approach to European Union reform. The leader of my party, Charles Kennedy, stated the other day:
	"There is much of the necessary reform agenda that can be achieved within the existing treaties".
	We should explore that most vigorously. However, time will be required for that. Perhaps, we need to wait for a fresh generation of western European leaders, some of whom are already waiting in the wings, and to hope that they will produce the fresh vision that an enlarged European Union badly needs. Here I return to the purpose of having a European Union and here I differ from the conclusions reached by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. I believe that the European Union has deep and irreversible roots and that the practical issue for us all is whether we can make its workings more effective or less effective.
	Within that, the real challenge for the United Kingdom is whether Britain is to play a central role in seeking to make the European Union a more effective institution in the service of the peoples of Europe and in the creation of economic prosperity, and a political influence for peace, or whether we will take the route that I think was charted out in a very detailed way by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. President Wilson managed it with 14 points. I think that he needed a few more than that for his grand design. But I think that the noble Lord charted a de facto withdrawal by the United Kingdom from an effective role within the European Union. Britain can be a major partner in a Europe that plays a distinctive role in world affairs, which is much preferable for us than a lesser role of going our own way in the shadow of the United States.

Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, this is turning out to be quite a serious debate, which is appropriate at this time in the history of the European Union. I appreciate very much the style and substance of the Prime Minister's position in the recent summit conference. I also appreciated the preview of the UK presidency that the noble Baroness the Lord President gave us, both in what it included and what it did not include. Perhaps both elements are equally important.
	Is the European Union in a crisis? During my time in Brussels, along with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson—indeed, even earlier than that—when we had the first such crisis I said to a very old European hand even at that time, "What a crisis". He said to me, "You should be pleased that the European Community is still capable of producing a crisis. It would be much worse if nobody cared what we were doing". Perhaps few people care. Perhaps it is a crisis for a small political class much more than for the citizens of Europe.
	That is the case despite the fact that the European Union now sees five of its major projects in jeopardy. First, there is the constitutional treaty. I have great respect for those of your Lordships who did a great deal of work on the treaty, but, from the beginning, I thought that it was unnecessary and that it was the wrong treaty at the wrong time. I am afraid that I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, "Please, no intergovernmental conference; please, no new treaty for the time being. Let the pause be long".
	Secondly, there is the financial plan for 2007–13. The British position is entirely appropriate. I suspect that the link with the agricultural policy, which is totally plausible and with which I agree, will mean that there is not likely to be a solution during the British presidency. That does not matter. It will probably happen in the early weeks of the Austrian presidency. It will not be a great event when it happens. It will be one of those fudges that are, perhaps, even necessary for agreements among 25 countries.
	There are three other issues that are rather more serious. On enlargement, I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. Perhaps the most unfortunate consequence of the interpretation of the referenda in France and Netherlands is that that interpretation has turned governments, political parties and possibly a good part of the population in continental Europe against further enlargement soon. I suspect that it will fortunately be inevitable now to take in Romania and Bulgaria. If it was not inevitable, there would certainly be forces to try to delay the accession. I also suspect—it is a dramatic failure of Europe—that negotiations with Turkey will be conducted in a spirit that, for some negotiators on the European side, is not intended to lead to the conclusion that Turkey should be a member, which it should be. I also suspect that the European Union will find it difficult to complete its task in the Balkans without holding out at least the possibility for the "not yet" states of the Balkans to be taken into the European family by membership of the European Union. Among my five crises, that is one of the three that are more serious.
	The next crisis has not been mentioned yet. I was surprised that it was not mentioned, not even by the Prime Minister at the recent summit. What happened to the stability pact? We have an interesting phenomenon in euro-land. Many people expected—I am one of them—that the introduction of the euro would mean for those who took part in it almost of necessity greater co-ordination of economic policy. So far it has not. On the contrary, some members of the euro-zone have gone their own way, and major members of the euro-zone have in the process come to violate and then almost explicitly violate the stability pact that they concluded as a loose and basic framework for the co-ordination of economic policies.
	That does not augur well for the prospects of economic development in member states of the European Union. It certainly does not augur well for what happens to the Lisbon agenda, which is the fifth point that we have to consider when deciding whether there is a crisis. On Lisbon, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. It is interesting that when Jacques Delors proposed the single market he had the good fortune to have sitting next to him in the Commission the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who translated the plan of the single market into—I have forgotten—270-plus regulations, directives, et cetera and thereby gave the communities a specific, clear task for what they could do.
	With regard to Lisbon, not only is there no noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in the Commission, there could not be. It is not possible to translate the Lisbon agenda into a programme for common European action. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, that the Lisbon agenda is not a European agenda at all. It is something that we want to see happen in Europe but which cannot be brought about by decisions of the institutions of the European Union. As regards the views of member states individually, I see no prospect of rapid progress along the Lisbon road in most major continental countries, although I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, that countries are free to choose in some important respects. Why should one prescribe its choices to the others, if the choices that are made do not impinge on the room for manoeuvre that others have?
	On the continent, the picture that I have sketched is interpreted these days as a clash of two visions of Europe. That is interesting. Fundamentally, I agree, but not for the reasons that are usually given. One of the interpretations of the two visions of Europe is, of course, the famous—or infamous—so-called conflict between the Anglo-Saxon model and the social Europe. Much has been said about it. In his brief comment yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made the key point.
	I have seen some as yet unpublished research conducted in Berlin that shows clearly that the differences between European countries on social policies are vast. They are so big that they far exceed the difference between what you might call a median European position and the US position. There is no European social model. Therefore, the alleged conflict is non-existent.
	Those on the continent who like to contrast what they call a mere free trade zone with political union are barking up the wrong tree. For one thing, they do not understand that even a free trade zone is an important agreement, as one can see in the case of NAFTA. It even involves certain legally binding arrangements, certainly for mediation and the conciliation of disputes. That is not the problem. There are two views of Europe. To put them in fairly stark terms, I describe them as follows. There are those for whom the unity of Europe is almost a purpose in itself. It is a purpose that they pursue because they want to see Europe, as President Chirac would say, as one pole in a multipolar world. Others might emphasise even more strongly the difference with the United States of America. It is a curious notion in which unity and power are the key concepts. It is a notion that leads to a Europe that looks for protection, looks inward and has a strange world view that one can detect, unfortunately, in a number of specific European policies.
	The other view is of a Europe that is open to the world. I rather like the attempt of my good friend Timothy Garton Ash to use the words "free world" rather than "western" to describe what we are aiming at—the real objectives that some of us would like to see realised. That world requires that a union such as the European Union pursues, above all, the goals of openness and liberty—openness to the outside, liberty in its internal structures—as a step in the direction of a world in which we live by rules that provide liberty for the largest number of people everywhere. It is those two views of Europe that, at the moment, come out into the open.
	I cannot disagree with the Foreign Secretary, who said that it was the contrast between the past and the future. I would like to think that one can describe it in those terms. It is therefore one of the main functions of this great country, which has such an important tradition in this respect, to push in detail as well as in attitude for openness and liberty, rather than for unity as an objective in itself, let alone for unity to create a pole—a power—in a world in which I, for one, do not particularly want to live.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, it is a great responsibility to take part in this debate following immediately on from the speeches to which we have just been listening. It is a remarkable contrast between the voices outside this House, as they reacted to the events of the collapse of the summit meeting—stridently and rancorously, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said—and the extraordinary bond of harmony and sanity that has characterised all the speeches in this debate.
	The collapse of the summit meeting provoked many people who were disposed to draw the worst conclusions about the European Union, particularly those who have never liked it, to proclaim not only the death of the constitution but also the death of the union. It is quite clear from the tone of the speeches made so far today on all sides that so far as we are concerned, that is not the case.
	I had the privilege—if that is what one says—of spending some time last September in what we would call the intensive care unit of a French hospital. I was rather entranced to discover that the French for intensive care unit is Département de Réanimation. If the European Union has been, or is, in an intensive care unit, it is also clearly in a Département de Réanimation.
	The thinking that has characterised all these speeches accepts as the premise that the European Union is there for keeps and something to which we belong, not just because it is our neighbourhood but because it has so many other positive outcomes for us. The irony is that all this momentary confusion springs from the rejection by the people of two founder members of a text that was intended, although certainly not designed, to make the Union more acceptable, more attractive, more intelligible. It resulted in a document which I dare say a number of us were preparing to have to defend in a referendum, if such had taken place, but about which we may now speak with rather more candour. It was in truth a parody of the worst faults of l'acquis communautaire at its worst. It was a parody on such a scale that l'esprit communautaire—the spirit that draws us together, the aspiration that we have—was being submerged to the point of becoming almost invisible.
	I had some sympathy—indeed, precise agreement—with Gisela Stuart when she said that whenever the word "Giscard" appeared in a message, the spell check on her PC immediately said "Discard". But if the treaty of the constitution is to be dealt with in that way, the agenda to which the constitution-mongers were addressing themselves, remains. It is now the task of our government—our Prime Minister and our Foreign Secretary; I emphasise both components of the government and, indeed, the whole government—to address the agenda which the constitution was trying to tackle. On what basis? There are two objectives: to restore, or try to restore, the mutual confidence which has characterised the union at its best and which has taken us through some very difficult confrontations; and to set about implementing the decisions that have already been taken but not put into effect.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and others that the Lisbon agenda is not an agenda for the Union. Nor, in a curious way, is the Stability and Growth Pact an agenda for the Union, because it simply spells out the implications of economic sanity, which the markets will in the end enforce come what may.
	The third item which has to be a part of that agenda was identified also by my noble friend Lord Lawson. It is a great pleasure to be sitting alongside my old confrère in this debate on this topic. He emphasised the need for stability. The need for stability should be more recognised in this country. We have far too much uprooting of institutions and change for the sake of change at a pace with which people cannot keep up, but stability is certainly an objective now for the European Union.
	The task facing Her Majesty's Government in their presidency should be seen not as a business of winning an international battle, but of helping to put back into working order a unique multinational coalition. Success for the European Union—I think this is common ground between all of us—remains a crucially important British interest.
	It could be seen more clearly if there was a proper understanding, as others have explained, of Britain's so-called rebate. The British rebate is not a privilege which can be taken or bargained away; it was always, and remains, an agreed and enduring means of correcting an earlier injustice—the misshapen original system that was a result of our non-membership. It is part of a deal between, and in the interests of, all the member states which, as others have pointed out, was achieved under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, who is sitting beside me.
	The contemporary history of the achievement of that settlement is worth considering a little more closely. First, it happened only after five years. So the idea that we are going to be assured of a settlement of the budgetary problems during the British presidency, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, pointed out, should not be taken very seriously.
	The details which in the end laid the foundations for the conclusion were actually hammered out during the French presidency in two successive weekend meetings at Chevening between Roland Dumas, the French foreign Minister and me; and between Guy Legras, from the French side, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, from our side. It was that work offstage by foreign Ministers and advisors which, if I may put it like this, put flesh on the bones which characterised my noble friend's powerful presentation of our case time and time again.
	The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, described yesterday the excitement when the agreement was reached. Characteristically, perhaps I may add this detail. My noble friend Lady Thatcher, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, Sir Michael Butler and I went into a little room containing four gold chairs off the main palace in Fontainebleau. President Mitterrand placed before us the approach that we were hoping for; that is, a 65 per cent settlement of the problem. We looked, we thought and we talked. It was my noble friend Lady Thatcher who said that that was not good enough and that it had to be 66 per cent. President Mitterrand said that if that was what we wanted, we would have to go to the Council to get it. I dare say that the rest of us were a shade less confident than my noble friend at that time, but into the chamber we went and we got 66 per cent. During the following decade, that was worth £120 million to the British Exchequer. So it was quite a remarkable achievement.
	The point is that the rebate was achieved within the framework of Anglo-French partnership within the broader framework of the European Union for the sake of the Union. When my noble friend came to present the results of that summit to the House of Commons a couple of days later on 27 June 1984, she said:
	"I pay tribute to President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl for their help in getting this arrangement through the European Council".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/84; col. 1000.]
	I hope she will forgive me if I go on, because she had also said:
	"We should not have got this agreement unless it had been known that we were very pro-European and that Britain makes considerable contributions to the life of the Community and believes that it is right to be in the Community".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/84; col. 998.]
	Our views have parted in some respects on that matter since then, but the essential features—

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I expected that reaction. I hope that I may still say that the broad agreement within this Chamber that we should be maintaining a position within the European Union and addressing the important agenda items that have been set out is one on which we have to concentrate. That view can be very well distilled out of the contributions that have been made in this debate.
	Britain certainly need not be adopting a feeble, negative, red-line approach to this issue. Provided others will do the same—and that must clearly involve effective reform and curtailment of the CAP within the confines of an overall smaller budget, we should be ready to play our full part in promoting the success of an enlarged European Union, not by enlarging its power, but by making it less pervasive, less dominant, and more accountable to the peoples and parliament alike. As others have said, there should be more open law-making and transparency in the Council. The European Union should be more ready to listen to, and be bound by, the representations of parliaments of the member states. As my noble friend Lord Howell acknowledged, it needs a longer-serving presidency, simply for managerial purposes and so that it might work effectively.
	Where I dissent from the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and my noble friend Lord Howell is in believing that real benefits can and should flow from the establishment, if possible, of a common European position on as many aspects of foreign policy as can be achieved. After all, we get enormous benefit from having an integrated trade policy in a world where the World Trade Organisation requires organisations to represent all the countries in one way or another. We are able to do that because we have a working partnership with our European partners.
	I do not proclaim the need for a common foreign and security policy as a means for challenging, above all, the United States. I do not subscribe to the narrow view which is attributed to President Chirac in that respect. But I should have thought that nobody, least of all the United States, could wish to see the emergence of a world in which the only accompaniment of the United States' input to foreign policy came from China, Russia and India. There is a need, for the sake of the world's talents—for those of the United States as well as our own—for the countries of Europe, with our common cultural background and our common political aspirations, to make an input into that debate for all our sakes. I do not think in terms of a mechanical arrangement, with a single, authoritarian European Foreign Minister. It is not an area in which the treaty proposed majority voting, binding us to objectives that we do not want, but an area where we should work as hard as we can to achieve an integrated and effective contribution to foreign policy. That is the agenda which the British presidency must carry forward, not theatrically, but practically.
	I shall remind the House of the words of the predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. What a great achievement it was, incidentally, for us to secure a British successor to the first Secretary-General of the Commission, Emile Noel. He lived up to our expectations dramatically. We are delighted to hear his testimony here along with those of so many others. Emile Noel said that our task should be not posturing, but problem-solving. That is the way in which we should be attacking the issue. Perhaps I may be even more Europhile in my closing sentence. As Jean Monnet would have wished, we should be displaying a preference for,
	"doing something rather than being somebody".

Lord Roper: My Lords, there is a certain irony in the fact that I am making my first speech from the Back Benches for over four years in this debate. A few weeks ago, I mentioned to some Members of this House that one advantage of no longer being Chief Whip was that I would have a good deal more time to play an active part in the referendum campaign. That now seems a pleasure forgone, at least for a while.
	The speeches in this debate, particularly the last four, of the noble Lord Lawson, my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, will be extremely difficult to follow. They have set a very high standard in speaking about the issues that we face together today. Having been rather depressed by some of the events of the past few weeks, I am certainly being reanimated by the speeches that we have heard so far—and I shall want to follow some of their points.
	There is no doubt that the results of the French and particularly the Dutch referendums, and the revelations in recent weeks, especially at last week's European Council, of the wide differences in approaches to the European Union of different member states have certainly had a salutary effect on those such as myself who have spent a good deal of their political and professional life advocating that Britain should play the fullest part in the progressive development of the European Union. But today I should like to draw some preliminary conclusions from these recent developments and make one suggestion of a possible response to them.
	We have seen two or possibly three disconnects or gaps in European approaches to the Union in the past few weeks. My noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth has already referred to one of them. The first, and the one about which most comment has been made, is the gap between the political class or elite and the population on European issues. That gap was most apparent in the Netherlands, where virtually all the political parties and virtually all the media favoured the constitutional treaty, while it was rejected by the public by a significant margin—significantly larger than that by which it was rejected in France.
	There has been a good deal of analysis of the reasons for that, but I shall refer to two things that certainly played a part in the Netherlands, which while not directly related to the detail of the constitutional treaty would exist in other member states too. One reason is the habit of political leaders in almost all European Union countries, irrespective of their own underlying commitment to the European Union, to tend to criticise the detailed workings of the Union and not infrequently to use it as a scapegoat when things go wrong. When things go right, it is thanks to the national government, but when things go wrong it is because of "them" in Brussels. That tendency inevitably has a cumulative negative effect on the public in all our countries. Why should they agree to more powers being transferred to a body which their political leaders seem so ready to criticise?
	More important, in the Netherlands, has been the failure to explain the reasons for and the success of the enlargement of the European Union to the eight post-Communist states that joined last year. Reference has been made to that already. Among the political élites in all member states, almost irrespective of their attitude to the European Union, there was an enthusiasm for enlargement; it was seen as something that we ought to do. In the same way that earlier enlargements helped to guarantee democratic societies in Greece, Spain and Portugal, so this enlargement has ensured that the adoption of the European Union acquis has provided a framework for the operation of a modern market economy in the new member states. But the case for that was taken for granted by the political élites and was never properly explained to our electorates in the existing member states. In the French debate before the referendum, the "Polish plumber" became a particular bogeyman, as an example of the dire results of enlargement.
	In the Netherlands, the widening of the European Union to unfamiliar countries, which the people did not really know, led the electorate to resist a treaty that might involve a further move to political union. It was one thing to contemplate a political union with western European countries that you knew pretty well. It was something rather different to do it with people whose capitals you could not really remember—and even to other countries that might be more difficult to cope with and whose membership appeared to be coming fairly soon. In this case, widening clearly made deepening more difficult than had been expected. One of the serious casualties of the referendum, to which I hope that I have a chance to return, is the question of further enlargement.
	The second disconnect, which was revealed very clearly at last week's European Council, was that between the political élites in the different member states, with regard to their concept of Europe. That has both a static and a dynamic dimension. There have always been differences of view both within and between member states about the ultimate objectives of the Union—but beyond these institutional debates there are also conceptual differences about what Europe is for, which became clear at last week's European Council. What is the scope of the Union? Those points have already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth.
	I remember at the time of the debates on the Maastricht Treaty, before it came into effect, saying that until then it had been possible for the Germans to see the European Union as just another layer of federalism, for the French to see it as the république Franc"aise à l'échelle européenne—the French republic on a European scale—and for the British to see it as a free trade area with the minimum of trimmings. I argued at the time of Maastricht that it would be impossible to maintain those differing concepts once you had a treaty of the European Union. I was wrong—they have been maintained to a significant extent, and the discussions of last week reinforced that.
	That has happened as a result of two factors. The first factor is my third gap—that is, the gap between those working in Brussels, who without resolving the conceptual problems to which I referred are able to work closely together on the day-by-day practical problems. There has developed a serious gap, or disconnect, between them and the national political élites. That becomes even more serious because of the second factor, which is the absence of any common European media or any common European debate about what Europe is for. The absence results in jargon about a common European political culture.
	We do not have a debate about the purposes or the scope of Europe, as distinct from the institutional details of the constitutional treaties or the specificities of particular pieces of legislation. Now there are widespread calls for such a debate—and it would be useful to ask how it should be organised. Some forums seem to exclude themselves. The European Council is not appropriate for a prolonged consideration, although the results of such a debate would, I hope, facilitate its future work. Nor, with great respect to my noble friend Lord Maclennan or the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, do I feel that the reawakening of the convention would be seem by many as the right way to progress such a debate. In theory, the European Parliament ought to be able to do it, but I suggest that there is such a gap between it and the debates in most member states that it would not be right.
	In these circumstances, and in spite of the disconnection between national political élites and their electorates, I turn to the possibility of national parliaments initiating such debates. It would be necessary to work that idea out in detail—but I have already mentioned it to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, in asking him whether his European Union Committee could explore in the first instance the feasibility and practicality of national parliaments playing a part in such a task. His reference this afternoon to Ireland in that respect shows one interesting way in which that is already being done in one member state. Perhaps COSAC, at its meetings, could consider whether that is something that could be generalised at a European level.
	In the few remaining minutes, I turn to what I believe may be the most serious casualty of the events of the past month. I refer to the continuing process of enlargement, especially its impact on the Balkans. Although the presidency conclusions of last week, if you read the small print, are encouraging in reaffirming the commitment to the western Balkans' future lying in the European Union, the comments in member states following the referendums have been much less encouraging. I was at a meeting a couple of months ago in Thessaloniki with parliamentarians from a number of the west Balkan countries—all those that would eventually hope to become members. There was no doubt that they saw European Union membership as a key part in resolving the remaining problems of their region.
	Two years ago in Thessaloniki, the European Council gave a very clear call in committing the Union to providing a future for the people of Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, and Serbia and Montenegro, together with Kosovo, to come within the European Union. The processes of reform, reconciliation and reintegration within and between those countries have a much better chance of going forward if they can be seen as having a European vocation. We still have Armed Forces in Bosnia and in Kosovo. An exit strategy for them would be much more difficult if the prospect of membership were to disappear.
	Security, democracy and prosperity—the three key purposes and successes of the Union among its existing members—will continue to be at risk in the west Balkans if the goal of membership is removed. The cost to the rest of Europe of continuing conflict on its periphery would be high. I hope, therefore, that the Government—and I was encouraged by the remarks of the Lord President in her speech this afternoon—will be able to play a key part in ensuring that that commitment to enlargement to include eventually the western Balkans is not merely maintained but proclaimed.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, this has been a debate characterised by the diversity of the contributions, and the seriousness of reflection on the events of the past month by a number of former Ministers and those who have held high authority in the Commission in Brussels. It has been the kind of debate that it would have been good to have replicated across the European Union prior to the holding of the referendums, and even in this country. It was a matter of some regret that, perhaps by an informal understanding between the parties, there was no such debate in our country on the eve of the general election.
	Even at this time of deep reflection about the European Union's future, it cannot be forgotten that it has been an unprecedented success for its members. Anyone with a sense of history must marvel at the achievement of such a long period of stability, peace and prosperity as western Europe has enjoyed for the past 50 years. The EU has seen its members decouple themselves from their imperial past, transform peasant economies into sophisticated skills-based industrial societies and put down strong-growing democratic roots. The great majority of its citizens now enjoy standards of living and social protection which two generations ago were experienced by the privileged few.
	Even at this moment of self-doubt, the European Union remains a powerfully attractive magnet to its near neighbours. They, like the states of eastern Europe which have recently joined the Union, are not attracted only by hope of access to its prosperity and the security of the Union's commitment to freedom, justice and democracy. They aspire to belong to a diverse Union without imperial ambitions; a Union which, when acting as one, can safeguard the interests of its members in the global councils; a Union whose actions in common can overcome the ineffectiveness of national policies pursued without "concertation" or in isolation and alone.
	I have to say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, whose speech I found one of the most thoughtful in the debate, that I do not see the two Europes which he describes as being entirely in opposition to each other: the Europe in which freedoms and liberties are being pursued and the Europe in which a capacity to be effective is being pursued at the same time.
	The economic success no doubt encouraged the members of the Union to look to it to promote other objectives held in common. The treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam recognised that when the Union speaks with a single voice and acts together it can be a powerful force for good. But to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who queried the sense of there being a policy on development aid within the EU, I commend the report of Sub-Committee C of this House in which the work done by the European Union to give a greater a bang for the buck has been described and taken forward. It seems to me to produce economies which are entirely to the benefit of the recipient countries.
	The treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam laid down those goals and the support for democracy in the Ukraine and the dialogue with Iran over its nuclear capability are recent examples of this impulse. The good sense of the Union tackling together the relief of world poverty, the problems of climate change and environmental pollution, terrorism and cross-border crime seems to me to be manifest. The development of a defence capability to promote peacekeeping and to safeguard fundamental human rights, as in Macedonia, is a small but important step to sustain the international rule of law.
	It is particularly important to remember that in the aftermath of the rejection of the constitutional treaty—and I do not doubt that that is what has happened—the evidence of opinion polls across Europe shows consistent and strong popular support for the Union's engagements in these tasks which it has set itself. The "No" vote was not a vote against Europe; it was a vote for a different Europe. The steps which are taken to redirect the Union must not turn Europe away from its goals. The mistake would be to confuse rejection of the means of European integration with the purposes of the Union.
	As my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth said, the word "crisis" is often overused in the context of the EU. The policy of the empty chair, the veto of Britain's membership, will be recalled as crises overcome. But it would be complacent to doubt the need for bold, new directions if the Union is to re-establish itself with its citizens as aptly designed for these new purposes.
	Some frank admissions would help to clear the ground. First, the provisions of the constitutional treaty were indeed worthwhile but would not have sufficiently reformed the Union's processes to diminish public criticisms to insignificance. The convention, of which I was proud to be a member and naturally disappointed with the outcome, went as far as its government members would allow, but it did not go far enough. There was no capture, as was earlier suggested in this House, by Euro-fanatics of the convention. It was, to some extent, an attempt to read the minds of the government representatives that characterised the work done by the convention's members. That may have led it to do not too much but too little.
	By way of example, and with no personal animus, I recall the adamant opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to extending the rules of locus standi before the European Court of Justice to allow European citizens to seek remedies for harm suffered. Too often in the work of the convention such conservatism lay behind the proclaimed intention of all the governments to enable the Union to "reconnect with its citizens". I do not belittle what was agreed. Much of it should be carried forward, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, suggested in his maiden speech, the requirement of greater transparency in the proceedings of the Council. But a new agreement is required.
	For a long time, the project of unification has been justified by its results: peace and prosperity. Today, the gulf between particular policy goals and their delivery is too wide to legitimise the processes of decision-making after the fact. The failures of intergovernmentalism lead to bad-tempered frustration at government level. But with the public, the sense is of a juggernaut which has stalled.
	Take, for example, the issue of managed migration, a subject of particular sensitivity in the Netherlands where two nasty political assassinations were experienced which cast a blight over the ideals of that country. Despite the agreement at Tampere in 1999 setting out the Union's priorities, five years later the Commission felt obliged to report:
	"The constraints of the decision-making process of the current institutional context preclude the effective, rapid and transparent attainment of certain political commitments. Moreover, the right of initiation shared with the Member States sometimes had the effect that the national concerns were given priority over the Tampere priorities".
	Now, as a follow-up, we have The Hague five-year programme to continue the work. The Dutch have every reason to complain, as good Europeans, that 10 years is rather a long time to deal with an issue of such pressing and immediately felt importance. To take a more straightforward example, although everyone argues that better police co-operation is needed—there is some manifestations of it—for two years the appointment of a new chief for Europol was held up by intergovernmental wrangling. Turning to the much discussed Lisbon agenda mentioned by a number of speakers today, high-flown commitments were made in 2000. But as the much admired Dutchman, Wim Kok, reported four years later:
	"Lisbon is about everything, and thus about nothing".
	It is scarcely surprising that the Services Directive, of high importance, is mired in national disagreements which the Commission lacks the democratic authority to cut through.
	I put it to noble Lords that to failures of output must be added growing dissatisfaction with the legitimacy of the inputs. Here to some extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, whose position on Europe could scarcely be further removed from my own. The public may be ready to acknowledge, as it should, that the creation of a single European market requires not only deregulation of economies in the member states but also their reregulation at European level since localised national policy actions would distort the efficient functioning of competition. But how is that exercise properly accountable? When agreements emerge in Brussels from the obscure intergovernmental "comitology", the public are less ready to accept that these agreements have to be imposed by executive fiat on their national parliaments. People are not wrong to worry that democracy in Europe is losing its way. They know that they may overturn their governments, but they are less clear that they can by their votes change policies subscribed to by their governments in this European context.
	Euro-sceptics, of course, wish to return to the good old days—as they see them—when the nation state seemed to be in control of its destiny and accountable to its citizens. But that view underrates the impact of globalisation on our country and our vulnerability if we stand alone. Moreover, such a course would most likely lead to the unravelling of the existing Union's achievements, which are too often taken for granted and assumed to be unshakeable.
	The Euro-sceptic case is essentially defeatist in denying the possibility of European democracy, much as it was denied by the ancien régimes for the nation states in Europe's Age of Enlightenment. To those who argue that there is no demos that feels a European identity, I would reply that democracy is about expressing, debating and ultimately making choices that serve citizens' interests. It was the Dutch and French judgment of where those interests lay that was being expressed in the referendum "No" votes, not an assertion of national identity on the part of two founder members of the European Community.
	Therefore, at this point, I would cautiously advance the view that there is in a Union of 25 democracies no simple alternative to embracing democracy as the way ahead which will satisfy the Union's citizens. In particular, it must be very strongly doubted—notwithstanding the eloquence of the Leader of the House—that an Anglo-Saxon initiative leading to the announcement of a new policy consensus by the Council would do the trick. In their own ways, all member countries are seeking,
	"a synthesis of the dynamics of liberalism with the stability and welfare of social democracy".
	But Europe's citizens want to know how: how can we hold those who make the choices for us accountable for those decisions? Twenty-five national parliaments holding 25 national governments to account may be better than nothing. I yield to none in my admiration for the work done by the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, which I have just had the privilege of joining. Surely he would be the first to agree that it is not viewed as a model, and one that would lead to great efficiency if spread across the European Union. It is not likely to be effective in producing agreed policy outcomes for Europe.
	To the question of how one would go about extending democracy, I must reply cautiously. John Bruton, the former Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland—earlier referred to with disfavour—proposed to the convention that the president of the European Commission should be chosen by Union-wide direct election. For most member countries, a parliamentary route to the top executive offices would seem more familiar and better adapted to the development of accountability. It would, moreover, build on the existing authority of the European Parliament to dismiss the Commission.
	At this stage, however, the initiative must lie with the Council, which would be wise to take its time. After all, the political Union is its creature, with its tasks well defined in the Single European Act, and in the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties. It needs to understand, however, what it means by the "democratic deficit", which was acknowledged at Laeken. It needs to be concerned that although the members were elected, and may be rejected by its citizenry, with consequent impact upon the direction of public policy at national level, no such democratic provision is made for Europe's citizens.
	I recall Jean Monnet's famous dictum, "We are not here to create coalitions of governments, we unite peoples". Coalitions of 25 national governments, even when led by as adroit a ringmaster as our Prime Minister, will continue to see their broad aims frustrated by disagreements over ways and means. They must now recognise that Europe does not belong to governments; it belongs to its citizens.

Lord Blackwell: My Lords, this is a historic debate. All the tremendous speeches that we have heard have reflected the significant changes and new reality in Europe. This is an important time to have such a serious exchange.
	I am someone who believes that the referendum results and the Council meeting that followed them mark a defining moment in the history of Europe. I welcome what I see as a long-needed breakdown in the fac"ade—it was a fac"ade—of a one-size-fits-all European model. After years of what has effectively been polite obfuscation, the reality has finally broken through that Europe does not have a single voice.
	Jean-Claude Juncker made the point that to many of the continentals it looked as though we were dealing with a confrontation between two different philosophies on the European project, or as he put it, a clash between two different views of Europe. As the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, explained, there are more than two models of Europe. That is the point: we are dealing with multiple views of the way in which Europe and European nations want to organise their affairs. We have to deal with that diversity, rather than the one-size-fits-all Europe.
	At the extremes, those different views range from the pursuit of economic protection, the high-cost, high-regulated, high-social-cost markets versus the UK model of recognising that we need to compete in global markets with open competitive economies. On another dimension there are the extremes of those who believe in full political integration versus those who seek a Europe of nation states. There is a contrast between those who seek to build Europe into a rival world-power bloc versus those who see our future as being part of a strong Atlantic alliance.
	The constitution was the high watermark of the attempt to paper over those cracks and to force us further down the road towards political integration. While we were assured in the UK, as others have said, that the constitution was simply a tidying up exercise, the continental leaders have been more forthright in bemoaning the fact that the loss of the constitution in their view represents a severe setback to their objective of political integration.
	It is not surprising that political integration has been their goal because many have seen it as the essential glue to hold together a fortress Europe vision, with a single currency, protected high-cost markets and a rival power bloc. However, the truth is that that model of an integrated Europe, however necessary it might have been to protect the vision that they had, was destined to fail sooner or later. The truth is that the economic diversity within Europe is too great for a single economic policy or a single currency. The political and cultural differences in Europe are too great to be contained within one democracy.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, that I believe democracy is a national event. One cannot have a democracy without a nation and Europe is not a nation. Therefore, a European democracy is a contradiction in terms. The risk is that the political elites in Europe were creating a forced vision, a forced union that was building intentions that sooner or later would explode. I for one am grateful that that has broken down sooner rather than later. I believe that the pain and cost of it breaking down further along the road would have been even greater.
	The reality is that the true underlying diversity of Europe has been exposed, and the cracks are too big, I hope, and too visible to paper over again. So rather than attempting to restore a flawed status quo, we now have the opportunity to create a new and more realistic model for Europe that truly recognises and rejoices in Europe's diversity and takes away the strains and tensions of trying to force a one-size-fits-all model on the different nations.
	The model that I advocate at this point, a Europe of diversity, is an à la carte Europe that recognises that different nations want different relationships and have different objectives. In my view, the UK wants the benefits of a European common market and the opportunity to co-operate with other European nations on important regional issues, whether they be crime, environment, transport or, in some areas, defence. What it does not want is to be part of an integrated political union, or of a protected, high-cost social market, or to have a common currency.
	However, it is unrealistic to believe that we can sell this UK vision of Europe to the French public, or, indeed, to many other publics in Europe. We have just seen that the French public are already concerned about too much competition and too much Anglo-Saxon Atlantic influence. The notion that we can take this opportunity to convince all other European countries that they should tread our route is nonsense, nor is it appropriate that we should try to do so. Instead, we can recognise that we have different endpoints and objectives.
	Within an à la carte Europe, if a core group of countries—potentially the euro-zone group or a sub-set of it—want to pursue the route to political integration, accompanied by a high-cost social market, we should let them do so, but without imposing their costs and their policies on us. We may think that they are wrong in economic terms, but we should recognise that they come with different histories, different experiences during the war and different experiences of democracy or lack of it over past centuries, so they have different perspectives on the benefits and the costs of moving into a politically integrated Europe. We also need to recognise that if they do want to perpetuate the euro-zone and it is to survive as a single currency with a single economic policy, they have to move towards political union because, so far as I am aware, no single currency zone has ever existed for long without political union.
	If we allow a core group to integrate, I believe that they would welcome the opportunity to pursue their vision unencumbered by the difficulty of embracing more than 25 countries in the same tight political union. That is the reality that the French and other electorates woke up to in their referendum campaigns. The truth is that a one-size-fits-all version of Europe is no longer credible and it is no longer sensible to pretend that it is desirable or essential.
	An à la carte approach to Europe would resolve those tensions. The UK and other countries that want to join us—I suspect it would be a large group of the accession countries and maybe the Scandinavians—would continue to be part of a common market. That would be our raison d'être but I use the phrase "common market" rather than "single market" because, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said, we want something that is much less regulated and interventionist than the single market has become. We would seek intergovernmental co-operation and funding of programmes that we find of benefit on specific agreed policy areas. Individual countries would have the opportunity to opt in or out of them as they thought fit, in the way that the UK began to develop in the previous decade.
	A major benefit of this à la carte Europe is that it would make it much easier to pursue the expansion that we all desire and to welcome new members into a liberal capitalist democratic club. Those members would be much easier to accommodate in an à la carte Europe than they would in a politically integrated Europe. As the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said, that should be a priority that overrides many other concerns.
	To bring about an à la carte Europe will require significant institutional changes. That is also an opportunity. It is an opportunity to break some of the deadlocks and to cut back some of the bureaucracy that have arisen in the way the current European institutions have evolved. For a start, in an à la carte Europe where each country could pursue its own objectives there would be no single budget. There would be budgets for the common market, for the core group that wanted to pursue political integration—but for them and their programmes alone—and for individual programmes that countries could sign up to. The common agricultural policy, if we have failed to get it fully repatriated by that stage, could be a programme that countries could sign up to, or not, according to their preferences. There is no need to have a common approach across the whole of Europe.
	Neither would there be a single legal acquis. The European Court of Justice could continue to move towards being, effectively, the supreme court for a core group moving towards political integration, taking the European acquis with it. There would be a much more limited role for a European treaty court to adjudicate on common market rules and intergovernmental treaties. Under that system there would no longer be a presumption that there was a body of EU law superior, in general, to national laws and constitutions in those countries that were not part of the core integrated group.
	Similarly, there would no longer be a single commission. There would be a commission that was effectively the executive of the integrating core group and there would be a wider, looser commission that administered the other programmes and the common market aspects of the wider European Union as a whole.
	It would also, and not before time, bring into question the role of the European Parliament and whether a European Union administering a common market and a number of intergovernmental programmes needs a European Parliament. I think that a European Parliament was brought into being to be part of the institutional and government structure of an integrated political union. It should remain that for those countries that want to be part of the core political union, but it would raise the question of a whether a European Parliament has a valid role in a Europe made of individual national democracies.
	There are a number of important institutional issues that the Government, and other European governments, could usefully address in building a new model of an à la carte Europe. Until recently, with the blind adherence to an ever-closer union, such radical changes would have been unthinkable. Today the question is why not go down the à la carte route? It is clear that that is closer to what the peoples of Europe want. It would give the core group that wants to integrate politically what it wants, if it continues to wish to go in that direction. It would give us, and many other members of Europe, including new accession countries, what we want.
	Let me briefly deal with the idea that the UK would be at a disadvantage if we went down this route. First, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, laid out, there is no reason for the UK to be disadvantaged. The other countries are more dependent on trade with us than the other way round. They would continue to value us. Secondly, we are in the strongest negotiating position we have ever been in to put our version of Europe on the table and to have the others agree to it because they need our agreement to build the kind of Europe they want using European institutions and acquis.
	I believe that the time is right to be bold, to seize this moment and to build Europe around an à la carte model. I earnestly urge the Government and this House to consider this approach.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is always argued that the European Union brings peace, friendship, harmony and co-operation in Europe. However, recent events, especially the recent summit, show a completely different picture—a quarrelsome, petty-minded, self-interested, divided Europe, uncertain about its future but still determined to press on with its drive for greater integration and a centralised superstate.
	That is the warped vision of the political and bureaucratic elites about whom we have heard from unusual quarters this afternoon. It is their vision, but it has been shown not to be the view of the people of Europe, when they have been given the opportunity to have a say. There might have been all sorts of reasons—we have heard some of them in the debate today—why individuals voted "no" to the constitution in the French and Dutch referendums, but they voted decisively against the constitution. Let us have no doubt about that. The collective voice decided that the constitutional treaty was not the way forward and must be set aside in favour of a different approach.
	Many speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, who has just spoken, believe that that is so and that that is what the French and the Dutch people intended. As the Foreign Secretary said on the "Today" programme on Saturday, when referring to the referendums in France and the Netherlands,
	"You cannot tell the citizens that they were in error. You have to listen to their voices. It is called democracy".
	So why will we not accept it? Why is it that the noble Baroness the Lord President—even yesterday, I think—made some excuses for why they voted "no".
	The Foreign Secretary understands that when the people say "no" they mean "no" and that that is called democracy. That sensible view is not shared by others. Giscard d'Estaing framed the constitution. His reaction to the vote was:
	"It was a mistake to send out the constitution to every French voter. It is not possible for anyone to understand the full text".
	He drafted it, so he should know; but what an insult to the intelligence of the French people and how out of touch with reality is the man. Is he not aware, after such a long period in politics and government, that a constitution to govern the people must be couched in terms that they can understand? If they have a constitution that they cannot understand, how on earth can they agree to be governed by it? The treaty should be in simple terms, not dressed up in high-flown rhetoric, designed to obscure and deceive, as is the one rejected by the French and Dutch people. I am so glad that they did that.
	Before the French referendum, I saw the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and I bet him £5 that the French would say "yes". I have never been so pleased to lose a bet, and I have paid him his £5. I do not know what he has done with it, but I hope he put it to good use.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention.
	Giscard, of course, piled arrogance on arrogance by implying that the French people would have to vote again. Last week, Mr Juncker, who is the president of the European Council—at least, he is until the end of this month—said:
	"I really believe that neither the French nor the Dutch rejected the constitutional treaty".
	Mr Junker said that after the French had voted 55 per cent against it and the Dutch had voted 62 per cent against it. What sort of people are they? The mind boggles at such arrogance.
	Pro-Europeans are always going on about the peoples of Europe, but when the people speak and the message is not to the liking of the governing elite they become hysterical, telling the people that they are wrong and very naughty. Either they want them to vote again or they ignore the people's voice and make moves to circumvent their will by deceit and stealth. Such are the crooked autocrats that this country is associated with and governed by. Unfortunately, that anti-democratic blight infects our politics and government in the United Kingdom.
	We must have an assurance today that none of the new items in the constitutional treaty will be brought in by the back door. If that is attempted, there will be an explosion of anger that will damage our political life, as it would circumvent the wish of the British people to have their say on the future of the European Union and break the Government's promise that there would be a referendum before the constitution was ratified and implemented.
	The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said that there must be a fundamental review of the future direction of the European Union. Such a review is long overdue, and some of us have been calling for it for a long time. The European Union has been travelling in the wrong direction for far too long, and the train that we have always been told Britain was missing has now run into the buffers of the people's will. That train was taking us to a destination that Her Majesty's Government have always denied, but continental leaders like Chirac and Schroeder know that the ultimate destination was always meant to be a centralised European superstate—a country called Europe.
	That is not the destination desired by the British people, who, in recent opinion polls, say that they simply want a free rade area and voluntary co-operation among nations on matters of concern to them all. Recent statements from senior European leaders are in direct contradiction to that view. I shall quote what a couple have said. Hans Martin Bury is the German Minister for Europe. In an article in Die Welt on 25 February, he said:
	"The constitution is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe".
	Miguel Angel Moratinos, the Spanish Foreign Minister, said:
	"Accepting the EU constitution means the surrender of member states' sovereignty".
	He added:
	"We are witnessing the last remnants of national sovereignty".
	There can be no doubt about what those words mean; they mean the death of the nation state and the construction of a single European state.
	Do Her Majesty's Government agree with those sentiments. If they do not, why do they not flatly repudiate them? They have not done so thus far. Perhaps the noble Baroness—our Leader—will repudiate them this afternoon. Then we will know where the Government stand. I trust that the fundamental review to be undertaken will be wide-ranging and will embrace all the organisations and individuals who want to join the debate, not simply Europhiles.
	It simply cannot be left to Blair. We have had too much of Blair this, Blair that and Blair everything. The Cabinet must assert itself and insist on being involved and giving collective advice to the people and the House of Commons, which, together with your Lordships' House, must be fully involved in the review.
	I also sincerely hope that the Government will be prepared to listen to people and organisations hitherto—I add that—described as Euro-sceptic, who have so often been proved correct in their assessment of the European Union, its policies and its rampant ambition. That includes their warnings about the euro, a policy that has turned sour, so that Italy is now contemplating leaving. In Germany, in a recent phone-in of 360,000 people, 92 per cent wanted to return to the mark.
	If the Government do not embrace all views, they will waste a great opportunity and fail the people of this country. I hope that the Government—and, indeed, the official Opposition—will discard the absurd notion that there is no alternative for Britain but to remain in the European Union, come what may. There are alternatives, sound alternatives that would benefit the United Kingdom economically, politically and socially and return the governance of our country to where it properly belongs: here in Britain, here in Parliament, by people who are elected by the people and who can be dismissed by them if they do not live up to expectations.
	The Campaign for an Independent Britain, of which I am chairman, has just published a new book entitled Britain and the European Union: Alternative Futures, written by three distinguished Bradford University economists and sociologists, which sets out some alternatives to the EU for Britain. I shall be happy to send a complimentary copy of the book to any Member of the House if they would like one. They simply have to let me know.
	It gives me no pleasure to see the European Union in such turmoil. That is bound to injure the interests of the nations of Europe. The project of greater and faster integration was always bound to fail. Let us make a new start and build a co-operative Europe based on the consent and support of all the people of Europe.

Baroness Noakes: I am glad to hear that, my Lords.
	My European credentials are weak compared with the vast majority of the speakers that we have heard today, so I shall concentrate on some territory that is slightly closer to my natural home: economics and finance. However, before that, I should like to reflect on the constitution, which is now in a state of limbo—it is in neither the land of the living nor of the dead. I do not regard it as satisfactory that in 2006 the constitution might be revived. That reminds me of cryonics, which is where foolish people have their bodies deep frozen in the hope that some new process or remedy will be found to give them new life in the future. What they do not realise is that even if that time ever arrives, the world itself will have moved on and they will be ill-equipped for the future.
	As we know, the constitution has been rejected by the French and the Dutch, and if people in many other countries were given the opportunity to have their say all the evidence is that they would reject it too. Noble Lords will be in no doubt about the result of a referendum in this country, had we been allowed to have one. So what sense is there is in preserving a constitution for possible future revival? It is clear that the constitution is not right for now and there is no reason to believe that lapse of time will make it any more fit for purpose.
	Over the weekend, I was struck by several references to Europe's citizens. The press release from Mr Juncker on Friday stated:
	"Europe must pay more attention to what its citizens are saying".
	Europe is not a nation. It does not have citizens. The constitution perpetuated the myth of European citizenship, but citizenship is allegiance to and protection by a country. UK citizens do not owe allegiance to Europe. If anything, they look to their own country for protection against interference by the EU.
	I tell the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, that there is no European demos. I agree with my noble friend Lord Blackwell, who said that European democracy is a contradiction in terms. Those who use "Europeancitizens" language betray their federalist aspirations. It has become clear that the vision of Europe as a nation state, which lay behind much of the constitution, is not shared by the people in Europe. Some member states and some members of the Commission are said to be plotting to implement as much of the constitution as possible by the back door, but the clear message is that there is no mandate for that.
	So, as many people have said today, what we need is a complete rethink on Europe. We should rethink whether the direction of ever-closer union is any form of viable guiding principle for the way forward. There is another way, which is based on returning powers to member states and an EU that interferes less in the internal workings of member states. It is still based on a European Union, but a very different one from that laid out in the failed constitution. My noble friend Lord Howell gave us a good start with his 14-point action plan to plot a way forward to a new form of Europe.
	Turning to economic matters, I say nothing about the budget and the rebate because, thus far, the Government's position has been admirable and I support it. However, I should like to say something about the euro. I praise the Government for their strength to date in keeping us out, although I regret that joining when the time is right is still their official position.
	It is clear that the euro is unpopular with people in many of the countries on which it has been imposed. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to that. There are stresses and strains within the euro-zone that may result in its breaking down. That is openly discussed not just in Italy and Germany but even in the French press.
	I am ambivalent about the failure of the euro and it is not clear what the economic outcome would be if it did fail. Certainly there would be a period of confusion as some or all countries returned to their own currencies and monetary policies. That may well affect global growth in the short term, though given the sclerotic nature of the euro-zone economy as a whole, we should be wary of overstating this case. My cautious instincts say that Britain would be better served if the euro-zone struggled on and avoided the trauma of multiple divorce, but another part of me sees the euro-project as a microcosm of all that is wrong at the heart of Europe. One size does not fit all in Europe and there is no point, over the long term, in pretending that it does.
	The failure of the euro could underline what we need to do in the wider issues of Europe; namely, to look again at the underlying principles and create a new way forward based on recognising differences rather than trying to eliminate all natural variation. I bear no ill will to those countries currently imprisoned by economic and monetary union, but I can see positive advantages arising from their liberation.
	The constitution as drafted would give the EU competence to co-ordinate the economic policies of member states. No one knew exactly what that meant, which was a worry in itself, but a reasonable interpretation would have been more European interference in the economic policies rather than less. Indeed, Nicolas Sarkozy declared that it was an,
	"embryo of European economic government".
	I shall touch on just two aspects of that: regulation and tax.
	Noble Lords will know that one of the biggest gripes of British business is that it is overly regulated. That is now not even disputed by the Government, as the Chancellor's recent conversion to the deregulatory cause shows. Over one-half of the UK's regulatory burden affecting business originates in Brussels, and that is the Chancellor's own calculation. What British business needs is less legislation in Brussels leading to less regulation from Europe. That is not better regulation, but positively less regulation. In itself that would not cure the regulatory disease affecting British business, but it could have a big impact. So we need to see a European Union that does less. The trajectory in the constitution was for Brussels to do more, and that is why the chief executives of most of the major companies in this country do not support it.
	The constitution sought also to preserve the status quo in relation to taxation and, in particular, the national veto over direct tax matters. This was one of the Government's famous "red line" issues. But as the Government know, that red line was a complete illusion. For the past decade the European Court of Justice, under the guise of protecting fundamental freedoms—in particular the freedom of establishment—has been striking down national taxation legislation that it does not like. For many years the Commission has had direct tax harmonisation as one of its goals. By and large we had successfully fought it off, but now we have all but lost the battle.
	In April the Advocate General gave his opinion on the Marks & Spencer group relief case. Most informed commentators expect that the Government will lose. By all accounts the Treasury will do so as well because for some time it has been holding discussions with tax experts in Britain. Now it has extended those discussions to officials in other countries about the way forward in the wake of such a decision. What is at stake is not the £30 million or so that Marks & Spencer hopes to gain, but as much as £20 billion in terms of lost tax revenue. Most UK companies have already lodged their tax repayment claims, as it is right for them to do. This individual case may well benefit much of British industry in the short term, but it does not benefit the country overall. It gives me little pleasure to think that the Chancellor will have an even bigger black hole to deal with because the real downside is that Britain's control over one of the key levers of our competitiveness will be largely dead.
	Many countries in the EU see the internal market as one in which competitiveness between nations can be controlled or eliminated. Quite rightly that has not been our view. We want to be an economy of choice for inward investment through our own competitive advantage and taxation is a key element of that. Several of the accession countries are in that game too, for example through flat taxes, recently the subject of a debate secured by my noble friend Lord Patten. We need to change direction on taxation and reclaim national autonomy.
	I hope that the Government will use their presidency to reverse the position on the constitution reached at last week's summit. They should take the opportunity to declare the constitution well and truly dead. Instead, I hope that they will promote a new vision of Europe as a community of nation states co-operating when they wish to in an open and flexible way. Nation states need to reassert control over their own economic destiny and be accountable to their own citizens for their success or failure in so doing.
	If the Government allow the constitution to stay in the deep freeze, a later presidency is very likely to declare that it has found a new elixir which will breathe life into it. I hope that the Government will agree that a proper funeral service with the permanence of cremation should be arranged in the next six months. If we can put that behind us, we could then start to move forward towards a fundamental redefinition of our relationship with our European neighbours.

Lord Moran: My Lords, a number of notable speeches have been made in this debate. I was interested in the 14 points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, but for me the highlight was the brilliant and stimulating speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. Those of us who have not shared the dream of a single European state were naturally cheered by the "No" votes in France and the Netherlands. These were obviously a major setback to the inexorable drive towards an integrated Europe. That project is now in deep trouble. I was going to say that it has "hit the buffers", but the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has gazumped me on that simile. Nevertheless, it would be rash to assume that an ever-closer union is dead. Even now the bureaucrats in Brussels are apparently pushing ahead with integrationist steps, provided for in a treaty which is supposed to be dead, or at any rate suspended. New buildings are going up in Brussels as if nothing had happened. Those who put them up are a little like those who continued to build monasteries during the reign of Henry VIII.
	Why did the constitution come to grief? Surely the main reason is that those who devised it showed a complete disregard for the views of the people of Europe. Giscard and his acolytes transformed what was supposed to be an adjustment to the EU machinery to accommodate new members into a blueprint for another giant step towards a single European state. Gisela Stuart and David Heathcote-Amory, who were there, described the process vividly in the booklets they have written. Charles I said on the scaffold:
	"For the people . . . their liberty and freedom consists in having the government of those laws, by which their life and their goods may be most their own; 'tis not for having a share in government . . . that is nothing pertaining to 'em".
	Giscard and those in Brussels who run the EU share the king's view entirely. With luck, they may escape the same fate.
	I believe that the Prime Minister was right to say in his Statement yesterday that the crisis is about the failure of Europe's leaders to reach agreement with the people of Europe about the issues that concern them. But Mr Blair is one of those leaders who signed the treaty. Evidently he had not read the Economist, which long ago said that the constitution should be put in the bin.
	The Commission, the continental heads of government and their advisers, the European Court of Justice and the whole apparatus of the EU's directing élite have always thought: "We know best and the ordinary man or woman in the street cannot understand these mysteries". They should now realise that ordinary people do understand. Whatever you may say about the French, they are not stupid—and they do not like what they are being presented with.
	But we in this country are in no position to throw stones at the high and mighty in Brussels and in continental governments. Our political leaders are just as much to blame. Who can forget the way the then Conservative Government forced through the Maastricht Treaty and, on 14 July 2003, bussed in scores of backwoodsmen to ensure the defeat of an amendment—moved from their own Benches by Lord Blake—which called for a referendum on that treaty. When it was debated, I said:
	"The people have every right to be consulted before their system of government is fundamentally changed . . . What we desperately need is for the Government and the political class as a whole to regain the confidence of the people".—[Official Report, 14/7/93; col. 306.]
	The Conservatives won the vote but lost the confidence of the people. No wonder the present Government have been reluctant to put the issues of the euro and the constitution to the country, knowing what the probable results would be.
	Political leaders in all three parties have continued to claim that the aim of the EU is not to create a European superstate when it is obvious to everyone that that is precisely what the machine in Brussels is seeking to do.
	I am afraid that in this House we have been no better. In 2003, 50 Peers—a number with real distinction in politics, in business and in other fields, including the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who was in her place earlier—found that there had been no authoritative and impartial report on what detachment from the European Union, in whole or in part, would mean for the United Kingdom. They argued that such a report was overdue and ought to be produced by a Select Committee of this House.
	But the establishment in this House—the Liaison Committee, on which the leading figures in the House sit—rejected this reasonable proposal on very largely spurious grounds and the Chairman of Committees ensured that when the matter was debated we were well and truly stitched up. The establishment did not want such questions seriously examined or the public enlightened. Its attitude was the same as that of the leaders the Prime Minister has now denounced.
	What should we do now? I think the Government are right to seize the opportunity of their forthcoming presidency to work for real reform of the EU, political as well as economic, difficult though that will certainly be. We need the building of new methods of co-operation, an end to "ever closer union", an end to the mass of maddening, detailed regulations—and of the scores of officials who devise them—an end to fraud and unsatisfactory accounts, and the return of control of agriculture and fisheries to nation states—in fact, a root and branch reform. If with the support of new members and others we can achieve this, or make a real start in that direction, it will be a great achievement.
	If we cannot, then it is no use our simply wringing our hands. We should move firmly to an associate status which, as some recent studies have shown, could give us the benefits of continued trade and sensible co-operation without the excessive costs and burdens of full membership. It would also be stimulating and, indeed, exciting to be once more untrammelled and to a large extent on our own.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, participation in a debate on Europe seems to require an extensive knowledge and intellect that, regrettably, seems to escape some of us. It is always a daunting exercise.
	It is sad to see Europe in a state of ideological chaos. After all, the European Economic Community, as it then was, was the brainchild of politicians after World War II trying to stop the endless wars that had engulfed the continent for the previous 500 years. I was not wildly in favour of the European Economic Community when it first started, but when I had the privilege of being a junior Minister, of going to Brussels in the early 1970s and of seeing all the countries sitting around a table, talking and arguing—even castigating the United Kingdom for raising the price of milk by one shilling a gallon without telling them—I thought it was wonderful. It was talk, not war. That must be encouraged, for that can only be good. My noble friend Lord Lawson said that that part of it had all worked, and so we have to move on.
	Events have turned me—as they have, I fear, a number of other people—against the Europe ideal. While so many people saw the value of trade and equal conditions among states as being wholly beneficial, the European Union took on a momentum all of its own and took off in directions both unseen and unexpected. Now we are talking about a European Union with a continuing president; a permanent foreign secretary; a European army; a national flag and even a European national anthem; and endless diktats designed to ensure uniformity within the states, which guarantee collective antagonism. All that—not the diktats but the rest—might have been a twinkle in the eye of European leaders a few decades ago, but it never featured in the aspirations of those who were happy to go along with uniformity of trade.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord Waddington that it is not surprising that people are now jumping off the vehicle and are saying, "This bus is out of control. It is going faster and faster. We do not know where it is going—the driver does not seem to know where he is going either—and we do not think we want to go wherever it is that we are going". I regret to say that it is the leaders of the Community, mostly on the continent of Europe, over the past 10 to 15 years who are responsible for that. The blame rests with them entirely. They have gone too fast. They have not carried their people with them. Rather than filling people with excitement, their wild aspirations have filled them with fear. Where are we going? If we get there, what next? That is why the exasperation expressed to me by a lawyer some years ago is rapidly turning into reality; that it will all end in tears.
	The European Community started off with six countries; it then went to nine, then 12, then 15 and now 25. Where do we go after that? Is the pot full or is there no limit to membership? What happens when everyone has joined? Presumably we begin to break it all up. There seems to be no long-term goal to be achieved but merely a desire to be on a moving and unstable belt.
	We do not want to be ruled by Brussels. It is one thing to harmonise for the common good; it is another thing to be dictated too constantly and on every subject. Why should one not be able to buy what are called food supplements—pills that people have taken for years—simply because Brussels has wiped them off the list on the altar of uniformity or harmonisation? As someone has said already, we can ask any banker about the diktats affecting his industry coming from Brussels and how a simple two pages that the customer can understand becomes eight pages of incomprehensible verbiage.
	Farmers used to farm as individuals with the support of government. Now it is the Government who farm and farmers get paid if they do what the Government want. Plant more hedges, and you get more brownie points. The more brownie points you get, the more you get paid. That is alien to the life of British people, whose individuality has made the country and the countryside what it is.
	There were 3,000 million people in the world in 1960. In 2025—which is only 20 years on—there will be 12,000 million people in the world. The world population will have multiplied fourfold in the lifetime of some people alive today. That is an alarming prospect. All those people will need to be housed and accommodated in cities, with schools, factories and roads, and they will have to be fed. But politics is short-term: we do not want food now, we want wildlife, and we want farmers to become industrial gardeners. It is no wonder that people who live in the countryside are appalled and distraught.
	The noble Baroness the Lord President was right to remind us that the common agricultural policy consumed half of the budget of the European Union. That is a colossal sum. Why is it that no one in or out of agriculture feels the benefit? It is always said that you cannot have a successful European Union without a common agricultural policy. I have never understood why. We do not seem to have a very successful European Union with a common agricultural policy, so why not try one without it? If that kind of money is being spent, as it is, farmers in Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom ought to feel the benefit. So ought the citizens. But no one seems to.
	There seems to be little that is common about the common agricultural policy anyhow. When the price of milk in England was 13 pence a litre, in the Netherlands, I think, it was about 25 pence. What is common about that? The countryside is disfigured with set-aside—we all understand why—but one never seems to see set-aside in France. There is nothing common about that. The common agricultural policy was supposed to produce uniformity of conditions and prices. It has not.
	I was so glad that my noble friend Lord Lawson said, as did the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that the right to sustain the agricultures of the Community ought to be returned to the countries of the Community. They are right, and I agree. Can Europe not manage without a system that seems to infuriate everyone? Can no one find an alternative, or is it that they can find an alternative but think that they will not get a majority of their fellows in Europe to agree to it?
	Now, the Government have introduced the single payment system, which is so unbelievably complicated that no one understands it. About two weeks ago, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said with some pride that the Government had produced 32 road shows and 1,200 videos in order to show farmers how to complete their forms. What kind of stupid system have the Government produced that requires 32 road shows and 1,200 videos to show farmers how to fill out their forms? Even then, they do not understand it. That is bureaucracy gone made, and the European Union has created it, even though I am told—horror of all horrors—that it resulted from a British initiative and that it was the British who conjured up the idea. It is no wonder that people want to jump ship with that kind of stuff going on.
	I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is standing up robustly to President Chirac and is refusing to be told that there is only one European solution and that he has to sign up to it. The Prime Minister is right on that, and he is right not to surrender the British rebate. He is also right not to have a referendum. He is lucky too: he has been let off the hook. Had there been a referendum, the constitution and the Prime Minister would have been roundly rejected, but as the constitution has to be accepted by all countries and as two have already rejected it, it is virtually dead. Continuing with referenda would be pointless, as total agreement is now impossible.
	Despite the fact that two months ago the Prime Minister said that, if elected, the Government would hold a referendum and would campaign vigorously for a "yes" vote, they have decided to do a volte-face, which is perfectly understandable. However, they have broken two of their election manifesto commitments within eight weeks of being elected, which is not bad going.
	Who would have known in a referendum what it was for which they were voting? A constitution of 511 pages is grotesque and incomprehensible. If you have not read it, how can you cast an opinion on it? If you have read it, you cannot understand it. How can you say in all honesty that that is what you want? What way is that to run a vital part of our future history? In some countries, the constitution is not even written in their own language. How on earth do they know what is going on? The 10 commandments had at least the advantage of being short, succinct and understandable; the constitution as a document is impossible. As long as Brussels and the leaders of the Community continue to be bureaucratic, verbose and incomprehensible and to use funny language, so long will people dislike them and distrust them. The leaders have only themselves to blame for that.
	The United Kingdom ought to be, and is, part of Europe. We want to trade freely and fairly, but we do not wish, nor do we need, to be part of a United States of Europe. We have our own sovereignty, which we continue to use for the benefit of ourselves and for the benefit of the Community. We do not have to surrender it for the doubtful benefit of Europe and to the unquestionable disadvantage of ourselves. I just hope that the Prime Minister and the Government will take advantage of this hiatus to realign the direction of Europe and to realign the direction of the United Kingdom.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I know that it is not the done thing to giggle at a funeral, but you would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at the efforts of the Eurocrats who tell us that the constitution is not dead but just resting, or, as my noble friend Lady Noakes, said, is in some sort of cryogenic deep-frozen suspension waiting to spring into life at an appropriate moment.
	Equally laughable are the attempts of the Eurocrats to inform us that the "No" vote was really a "Yes" vote and that the electorate did not understand the question. But were those not the same Eurocrats who told us that a "No" vote in the constitutional referendum would be a "No" to the whole of Europe? I think that that is what some of them said. Was it not an EU commissioner who told us that a "No" vote would mean a return to the gas chambers? Yes, it was: I am afraid that that is right.
	Do they still believe that? Apparently, they do. I have bad news for the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. Even today in the Telegraph, Mr Michel, an EU development commissioner—I do not know what development commissioners develop; perhaps photographs—and a former Belgian Foreign Minister, in an interview on Belgian radio, said:
	"The British Prime Minister has the upper hand, but to run a good presidency, it's necessary that everyone helps . . . We'll help him, but on condition that it's all heading in the direction of more Europe, and the direction of deeper [integration]".
	That is still the mindset. It is almost incredible. What sort of planet do they live on?
	As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, reminded us, the various Euro-transports we were told we should not miss at our peril—planes, trains and boats—have all crashed, pranged and sunk. They still believe we should go on the same journey to God knows where. We do not know.
	The only thing about which I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, is that there is a chance to do something different. However, I part radically from his solution. If we are to seize this chance, we must not think of trying to repair the discredited Euro-model that is sitting smoking in the ditch but find a different way of getting to where the people of this country want to go.
	Before Mrs Thatcher—the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—came into power in 1979, it was the accepted wisdom on all sides that exchange controls were the norm. They were here to stay. When her government proposed to remove exchange controls, they were told, particularly by the orthodox leftist economists, that all sorts of plagues would rain down on us—frogs would appear, locusts would eat our corn, MEPs would stop fiddling their expenses. We were told that all sorts of weird and wonderful things would happen. In the event, we became freer and richer.
	As with exchange controls, so with the EU. Again, it seems to be accepted government orthodoxy that our membership of the EU is in some way a good thing and we have to go along with whatever it brings. Why? My noble friend Lord Stevens said that this is a debate worth having, and indeed it is. Why do we have to go along with it? Why is it a good thing to give away £12 billion of British taxpayers' money to the European Union every single year? That is £35 million a day—£3 million or £4 million has been given away just while we have been having this debate. No one has ever told me why that is a good thing. Perhaps someone will.
	Why did we ever agree to allow the European Commission to have the sole prerogative of framing EU laws, which now cover more than 60 per cent of all our legislation? Why are we so spineless about that? Why do we let these unelected political retreads tell us how to hold a ladder, what we should do with our land, how many fish we can catch, how many hours we can work? How did we ever agree to make it a crime to sell vegetables, fruit and meat in pounds? It is astonishing. But I remind your Lordships that it was not the people of this country who agreed to that. They were never asked. They have been let down by their political leaders and their inability to tell the truth about where the European project has been leading and how much power we have been giving away.
	The people of France and Holland have, mercifully, blown a giant raspberry at the whole European project. The Government must now be open and tell the people of this country what membership of the EU is costing them financially and in terms of financial sovereignty. In financial terms, I repeat that we hand over £12 billion a year to the EU. The British Chambers of Commerce calculated that more than 80 per cent of the regulatory costs on British business are imposed by Brussels. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, gave a slightly different figure, which I think referred to the amount of legislation. According to the British Chambers of Commerce, 80 per cent of the total cost of regulation comes from Brussels, whose regulatory grasp is quite astonishing. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, mentioned some of the areas, and I can add to them. Working time, water quality, food labelling, fire precautions, car tax, parental leave, animal by-products and employment relations are just a few of the areas which are covered by the regulatory animal in Brussels.
	The Dutch Government have recently estimated in an official study that the total cost of EU regulations in Holland was 2 per cent of GDP. That is presumably one of the reasons why the Dutch blew their raspberry. If we assume a similar figure for the UK—and I see no reason why we should not; we are both highly developed countries with an industrial base and advanced economies—the cost of EU regulations would be £20 billion a year. That is absolutely outrageous.
	This is madness, yet the EU's cheerleaders are still pretending that EU membership is in our national interest. The truth is the very reverse. Our membership of the EU is costing us billions every year and making us ever less competitive in the global economy. The EU is failing; as the Lord President was kind enough to remind us in her opening remarks, it has 19 million people unemployed. It has low growth and a decreasing share of world markets. We have to do things differently.
	If the EU is to continue at all—and I think I am supported in this by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and my noble friend Lord Blackwell—it should be more of an intergovernmental organisation, whereby sovereign governments, with the agreement and authority of their people, could co-operate on a range of policies agreed between themselves. I do not believe that we would need the European Commission at all, unless it was a very slimmed down version called something like the secretariat, to oversee the implementation of intergovernmental regulations. The European Parliament would, of course, be redundant and would be abolished. All the Euro-paraphernalia, such as flags and anthem, and all the supranational trappings and accretions of power that the European Union has gathered to itself in the acquis should go. The Government and the Prime Minister really ought to welcome this sort of reform and they should fight for it. Many speakers today have said this and I support them.
	There should be no more agonised EU summits. How wonderful that would be after the ghastly summit that we have just experienced. There would be no more humiliating horse-trading. Mr Blair would be spared the agony of being polite to Monsieur Chirac and trying to remember the name of the Luxembourg Prime Minister, only to find that he was talking to the Lithuanian cultural attaché.
	Above all—this is an extremely important point—Westminster would regain respect through more inter-governmentalism. I am sorry to say that, in parliamentary terms, we have become political eunuchs. Parliament is largely nothing more than a rubber stamp for European directives and regulations. We cannot change them. If we do, we risk fines in the European Court of Justice. It is time that we became, once again, a representative body that is accountable to its electors. As a by-product of being a sovereign parliament, we might even see an increased interest in politics and the political process.
	If we do not get that sort of reform, the Prime Minister should simply pick up his telephone, having enabled his Crazy Frog dial tone, and call Monsieur Chirac to say, "I'm sorry, we're leaving, and our £12 billion cheque is leaving with us".
	We were told that our abolishing exchange controls would be unthinkable, but, as a result, we became freer and richer. If we were to leave the EU, we would also become freer and richer. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, said that Euro-sceptic arguments were largely defeatist. If it is defeatist to be freer and richer, I am a defeatist. We are better off out.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I often wonder why, when times are hard, we use French words: bizarre, grotesque or, like my noble friend Lord Ferrers, volte-face. It is almost as though we do not have an English word to describe the strange situation that we are now in. I will try to take your Lordships back a little and then to look forward into the future.
	It saddens me that we seem to have forgotten that Winston Churchill effectively created the EU. I want to put on my glasses and as some form of ancient returning officer make some announcements. I go back to the 21 October 1971 and the Motion before the Lords and Commons:
	"That this House approves Her Majesty's Government's decision of principle to join the European Communities on the basis of arrangements which have been negotiated".
	That was after nearly 10 years of negotiation and discussion. The most loyal subject we have in this House at the moment is the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who openly admitted that since 1962 he has totally opposed what was proposed.
	At that time, there was a certain schizophrenia in the political world. In the House of Commons, after some 200 speeches and 600 votes, 356 Members said "yes"—that is 59.3 per cent—204 said "no"—40.7 per cent—with a majority of 112. In your Lordships' House—partly dismissed in the other place as backwoodsmen, although the Prime Minister at the time said that we were frontwoodsmen—451 Members—88.6 per cent—said "yes" and 58 said "no"—11.4 per cent—out of a total of 509, a majority of 397. In the combined Houses—we are all parliamentarians—out of a total of 1,109, 807 said "yes".
	It was the speeches made on those days that I rather enjoyed. I have many of them here now, and I have read them all again. I wondered why we had changelings or turncoats entering the political arena. I take one quote from the speech of Sir Alec Douglas-Home at the beginning of the debate:
	"In this House and out of it, there is widespread recognition that we have reached the time of decision and that the proper place for that decision is Parliament".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/10/71; col. 912.]
	Mr Stanley Orme, Salford West, intervened:
	"No. Ask the people".
	I always thought that you asked the people through Parliament, but he was the first to initiate the process of referendum.
	Mr James Callaghan of Cardiff South East said:
	"Tonight is no more than the first skirmish in the struggle, in the course of which we shall, I hope, by debate and discussion between ourselves, establish what is Britain's correct relationship with Europe and what is our role in the world ahead".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/71; col. 2202.]
	It seems no different today. The problem is that we do not know where we have been, we do not know where we are going, and we do not know where we want to go. All we know is that we are trying to be pro-British, and we are not sure whom we should be anti-.
	What saddens me is that in 1971 most who voted "no" were members of the Labour Party. Mr Orme said, "When we get in, we are going to ask the people; we shall have a referendum". A referendum was held on 5 June 1975 with the question, "Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community?", and, in case people did not know what that was, in brackets were the words "Common Market".
	At that time the total electorate was 40 million, of whom 29 million voted. The turnout was 64.5 per cent, compared with 59.4 per cent in the 2001 election and 61.5 per cent in the last election. The percentage that said "yes" was 64.5 per cent, and 66 out of 68 counties had a "yes" majority. The only two that said "no" were Shetland and the Western Isles. By any measure, those statistics show that we were committed and that people wanted to join the Common Market. What went wrong? What has happened?
	I shall jump forward to my own experience. I have worked for most of my life in or with the countries of the European Union, often in the third world, and I have some knowledge and understanding. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and other noble Lords have properties in France, and I have already explained, with pride, that I am a paysan. I call myself a peasant, but paysan means countryman. In producing wine, I benefit from the CAP. More interestingly, I believe that the CAP is a good idea but carried out in the wrong way. I say that because if one looks at the European Union as it is today, one is struck by the differences rather than by the similarities.
	The UK is an urban country; 90 per cent of our people live in urban areas. The only country with more urban living is Malta. In Australia and New Zealand, of course, most people live in urban areas. However, the peoples of other countries on the continent of Europe live mainly in rural areas. My noble friend Lord Inglewood pointed out the sizes, but in most of those countries—except Holland, which is mostly urban—a third of the people live in rural communities. Unlike our rural communities, theirs are alive throughout the week because of subsidy. That subsidy was established some time ago and is wrong. If anything, it should be a domestic subsidy from the French Government. If the French Government tried to get out of it, there would almost be a revolution. I can promise noble Lords that even my tractor would probably block the road.
	I like it when I am in France because I have friends. I was asked to have a specialist adviser there on referendum night, and one of my Foreign Office friends came down. We watched English, French and Italian television. In the mean time, we had discussions with the paysan brigade and the other local communities—some of them in Le Pen country—about what one should do. They said that we should vote against all governments because they have got it wrong and there should be a "non" vote. I went round and told everyone to vote "non". It was "non" to Chirac.
	The postman—the facteur—was the happiest friend of all. He had a new girlfriend. He was driving around very quickly, and he asked me what he should do. I said, "When you deliver the letters before the election, please say 'non', and if there is a 'non' in the house will you give me the same hoot on the horn?". So right around the valley the postman was hooting, "Beep, beep", which meant "non".
	There was a great atmosphere, as there is in elections in those countries. It was fun. It was having a go at the Government. It was having a go at people who said, "We must have a 35-hour week. You can work for 75 hours yourself, but if you want anyone to work more than 35 hours you have to employ another person and pay the social tax", so the charges go up. That system, with minimum wages and so on, has killed employment. It means that in many of the Latin countries no one wants to work. In Germany, naturally, work is only an unnecessary interlude between two holidays. The Germans are very pleased with the early retirement ages—the 35 years—but they have lost their ability to lead. They have no leaders and do not know what to do next. The worry is that the Left and Right wings are moving back to National Socialism. That is a long way off, but it is there. They are not interested in their future, and they have run out of money.
	On the other hand, because they have a slightly grey market, my Italian friends have worked out that they can attract most of the purchasing from around Europe because it is cheaper to buy anything in Italy than anywhere else in Europe, if one pays in cash. The system of the euro does not work, because nobody is keeping to the fixed rules that it needs, so a lot of people would like to pull out of it.
	I find it confusing because many people in France still talk in anciens francs. I have no idea how much an ancien franc is. I have no idea or understanding when someone talks about the cost of the next space shuttle in millions or billions. The currency has not worked.
	Where does the future lie? It lies in having a rethink, looking at ourselves and saying—maybe like Galileo, who got it wrong and got into trouble—that maybe the world should revolve around us. Let me explain why. If one takes the Queen's stamp on an envelope, our sovereignty incorporates approximately 29 per cent of the population of the world and 20 per cent of the world's surface. That is the Commonwealth. That is a relationship that I have valued over time and that other countries see as being more valuable than we do.
	Supposing, in outre-mer—in international activities—we could get alongside the French with the francophone countries, we would have almost half of Africa, where the problems lie. That is where we have relationships, abilities, knowledge and historical understanding.
	Then one comes to other factors that cause concern. It is the differences that make Europe. The moment that anybody seeks to harmonise taxation, we will have people jumping down on us saying, "Hang about. What about your alcohol tax? You are completely destroying the market for alcoholic products on the Continent". On the other hand, our taxes are letting things in here. For example, on the continent of Europe a 24-pack of beer costs the same amount as a supermarket in England has to pay in alcohol tax. That is outrageous. Yet, if the German Government were to reduce or get rid of the speed limit tomorrow, they would fall, and if the French Government put back a tax on motorcars, they would fall. Motorcars are important, but people are more important than things.
	The democratic and social make-up of that remarkable collection of countries is varied. The more we expand the European Union, the more complex and difficult it becomes. Of course the Turks are not European. They just have Constantinople on this side, but they are effectively Islamic or Arab. Where does Europe begin and end? I am not sure. I cannot understand why, when 75 per cent of the population of America is of European origin, they do not want to have anything to do with it. So there needs to be a slightly more global attitude to all of this.
	As secretary of the Parliamentary Space Committee, I spent last week in Paris with people from the European Space Agency and others. We had an interesting time and talked about the problems that the British Government, Mr Chirac, Mr Schroeder and the Italians have, and the problems that all the others will have. But underneath there was mutual respect and understanding. I believe that if, at this time, we were to sit down with the French to negotiate and discuss in camera, and then possibly did so bilaterally with the Germans, without forcing and dealing with money, it would work.
	Outside, there are two tableaux, or carvings, on the wall. One shows the Field of the Cloth of Gold. Throughout history, we have had problems with France. We did not have so many problems with Germany; there was a closer alliance. In fact, as your Lordships will know, during the Napoleonic wars we raised regiments in Germany, and in France, Switzerland and throughout the world. That reminds me that the entire armed forces of the Commonwealth exceed those of the United States of America. Those are absolutely useless statistics.
	A few thoughts have been advanced to me. The first is on taxation. Why not take all the deprived rural areas of this country and remove all small businesses from any tax? To some extent, that is what the common agricultural policy does. If we lose any form of economic activity in rural areas, the country will polarise around the urban areas. Why do we not say to our aged, "If, once you have reached 65, you want to go on working, you may work for 35 hours a week and you will pay no tax on your income"?
	There are simple things that I have discussed with many people. We have made life so complicated for ourselves and more complicated for other people, but the sadness of it all is that we have lost privacy and freedom. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said that we should talk about the free world; we should make governments give us back our freedom.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when national health dental services will be available for all.
	My Lords, many people tell me that you should never ask a question unless you know the answer. I do not normally follow this advice and I ask questions in your Lordships' House because I do not know the answers and I am genuinely seeking information.
	The Question tonight asking the Government when national health dental services will be available for all is different. I believe that I do know the answer. It is simple and can be given in one word: never. If pressed in the Gilbert & Sullivan manner, "Wot never?", I would have to concede, "Well, hardly ever". Your Lordships may be surprised to hear that I did not attribute that answer entirely to this Government's lack of dealing with the shortage of NHS dentists.
	National health dentistry has never been fully available to all. For the Prime Minister to say in 1999 that,
	"everyone within the next two years will be able once again to see an NHS dentist just by phoning NHS Direct",
	was foolishly optimistic to say the least. That optimism was compounded by the Department of Health, on behalf of the Government, in the 2000 NHS Plan, stating that it was firmly committed to making high-quality, national health dentistry available to all who wanted it by September 2001.
	When the copies of the original 1948 public leaflet on the National Health Service was reprinted to celebrate 50 years of the NHS, it contained an interesting qualification, regretting that there were not enough dentists to provide the service fully, right at the outset. Only arriving in the UK in 1954, I had not appreciated that that had been the position, although I knew from direct personal experience that Commonwealth dentists from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa poured into the UK during the 1950s. There was certainly a demand for dentists and one had only to open a practice for patients to arrive at once, although we never saw queues as are now shown on television when anyone opens a new NHS practice.
	Access to dentistry now is very limited. Last week I met a pregnant woman who ruefully commented to me that for the first time in her adult life she was entitled to free dental treatment but could not find a national health dentist anywhere to accept her as a patient. About two weeks ago, an elderly woman's son phoned me to say that his mother was in great pain and how could he find out where to go for emergency dental treatment. I do not intend to categorise more cases as a plethora of examples have been quoted in the press. Those are just two recent incidents in which I was directly involved.
	I was startled when recently at a citizens advice bureaux reception in the House, the guest speaker said that queries about how to obtain dental treatment were one of the most frequent problems brought to them. The CAB has sent me details of specific cases involving travel, one of which was a man with mental health problems, who was unable to read or write. He came to the CAB in pain. NHS Direct told him that he would have to undertake a 40-mile round trip on public transport for emergency treatment. He could not possibly manage such a trip unaccompanied. In other cases, it was not only distance but also cost that was extremely difficult.
	CAB acknowledges that the Government have tried to improve dental access, but believes that some primary care trusts (PCTs) are not maximising the opportunities available to commission local access sessions. They emphasise that it is crucial that the new dental services are planned around the needs of local communities, not the convenience of service providers.
	I followed that up with the CAB and asked what answer they give to clients when they seek help. The reply was, "Contact NHS Direct", and they are given the number. I was told—I ask the Minister to note this point as I believe it is important—that between 60 and 70 per cent of those who apply to CAB for such help have never heard of NHS Direct and CAB is convinced that there is a clear need for it to be more widely publicised.
	The NHS Direct number is not a freephone number, but I believe it is charged at the local rate. I decided to give it a try to see for myself just how it worked. A voice answers, saying, "You could try your Thompson Local Directory or use the interactive button on your television to get information; otherwise, please hold". I discovered one had to hold and hold. In all I had seven messages such as, "We are aware you are waiting", "Thank you for your patience" and "Your call will be answered as quickly as possible". I held for about 10 minutes.
	The girl who eventually took the call was pleasant and tried to help. I was impressed that she seemed to be in the UK rather than in India, which appears to be more usual these days. She gave me the numbers of several dentists in central London and the number of the primary care trust, as it is responsible for providing a list of NHS dentists in the area. When I contacted a number of dental practices I was pleasantly surprised to be told they took national health patients. Less pleasing was the response when I asked about the minimum fee for an examination. The lowest quote was £14. The correct charge for an examination is £5.84, representing 80 per cent of the gross fee, which is £7.30. Clearly none offered an examination only. The patient's charge is 80 per cent of the national health dental fee, with a maximum payment of £390.
	After that, I contacted the PCT to ask whether it could supply a list. The answer was that it should be able to do so, but unfortunately the lists had been transferred from another PCT, where they used to be kept, so I would have to be referred on. By now I had been on the phone for more than two hours, and I had had enough. Your Lordships will see how frustrating this process can be, and how much worse if you are suffering toothache.
	The National Audit Office report in November 2004 found that since 1990–91 NHS spending on general dental services has increased by 9 per cent, compared with a 75 per cent increase in overall NHS funding per capita. Obviously, dentistry is the Cinderella.
	There has been poor workforce planning. This is aggravated by dentists reducing the amount of National Health treatments they undertake. The new dental contract, twice deferred, has still not been settled. It seems to be on hold. No further discussion meetings have been arranged.
	The estimated shortage of dentists now is 1,850. Of the 230 dentists recruited in Poland, 114 are now registered to practice. The fee paid to Method Consulting for that procurement was £3.8 million, which is more than £16,500 per dentist.
	Dentists believe that they need to spend more time with their patients to provide a better service. Remembering the treadmill of my practice days when, like most dentists, I used two surgeries so as not to lose time while patients took off their coats, I think that it is very desirable for dentists to have more time to communicate directly with their patients and to deal more with prevention. However, that will certainly mean that fewer patients will be treated per dentist, and that must mean that the shortage of practitioners will be even greater than already anticipated.
	The 170 extra places in dental schools in England sound good, but those students will qualify five years from now. What is being done about the 6 per cent decline in the number of clinical academics in dentistry who are needed to teach undergraduates and postgraduates? Why is the average National Health funding for dental academic posts less than half that for medicine?
	Dentists support preventive dentistry and there is a need for it, particularly in areas such as Manchester where the decayed, missing and filled rate is high compared with Birmingham where residents have benefited from fluoridated water for many years. Tragically, in the north-west, many children every week are still facing extractions under general anaesthesia. The most deprived children have the greatest problem. Fluoridation of the water supply would help them.
	There is no easy answer to how to provide a good NHS dental service. A salaried service is not the answer, but patients with special needs require special facilities. These must not be overlooked.
	There has always been differentiation between treatment for dental health and cosmetic dentistry. Many expensive, sophisticated treatments and new materials are now available. Patients want them and are usually prepared to pay for what are almost fashion items.
	Most family dentists now operate a mixed practice offering National Health and private treatment. Would it not be better to fit in with this style of practice by having a good strong basic National Health core service? By promising everything to everyone, the Government may deceive themselves, but not the patients.
	Now, with the new contract in sight, I ask the Government to consider providing a soundly based National Health Service core dental service, as that could be available for all.

Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, I too would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on raising this Question, which seems to a relatively new Member of this House to be one that we debate fairly frequently. We have heard from the noble Baroness just how frustrating it is to get an NHS dentist and we know that a new system is being piloted and is working well in some places, as the noble Lord, Lord Chan, told us.
	First, we know that the British Dental Association has welcomed the delay in implementing the new system as a whole until April of next year because it has considerable doubts about the preparedness of primary care trusts to commission dental services effectively. One has to say, as a wider point, that PCT commissioning is at an early stage generally. Many have inadequate expertise easily at hand for specialist services of any kind. That is an issue which the Government must address urgently, and it would be good to learn from the Minister what plans the Government have to, if you like, up the ante in order to increase the level of expertise in primary care trusts in commissioning dental services.
	Secondly, the National Audit Office's excellent report published last November, Reforming NHS Dentistry: Ensuring effective management of risks, raised the need for primary care trusts to,
	"develop expertise and resources to encourage dentists to maintain and increase their commitment to NHS dentistry".
	That is something we all want to see. But the report goes on to say that:
	"The Department of Health will need to ensure that it has effective oversight of the changes, capturing the necessary data for monitoring and analysis".
	Yet it is quite clear at the moment that most primary care trusts are nowhere near able to do this and that until they are, the department cannot possibly capture the necessary data for monitoring or analysis since the systems for getting that data from primary care trusts will not be in place.
	Thirdly, the recruitment of dentists from overseas, particularly from Poland, as we have heard, is not the ideal way to sort out the problem—a sticking plaster solution, one might say. With 170 extra undergraduate places in place from this coming October and a capital investment of £80 million to support the expansion, there is some hope that we will be able to have a largely UK-trained dental workforce within six years or so. The Government are much to be congratulated on that. But it is still not clear whether all this means establishing a new dental school or schools. In her reply to the Queen's Speech, the Secretary of State said that a new dental school in England was on the cards:
	"We certainly do have a plan for a new dental school".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/5/05; col. 573.]
	But the Council of Heads of Medical Schools and the Council of Heads of Deans of Dental Schools published an update of their 2004 survey of clinical academic staff numbers in the UK's medical and dental schools earlier this month. It showed that the number of clinical academic dentists has actually decreased by 6 per cent. Indeed, at the end of May this year, there were 444 clinical academics in dentistry, 30 fewer than those returned in 2003, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has noted.
	Meanwhile, the General Dental Council's general visitation programme to dental schools has found several dental schools in financial deficit and most of them having problems in recruiting staff. So will we really be able to train 117 new dentists a year in the UK? Will we be able to staff the dental schools? If not, what will this mean for making NHS dentistry available for all?
	Meanwhile, as we know, the Department of Health has committed itself to recruiting 1,000 extra whole-time equivalent dentists into the NHS by October this year. The ways of doing this are by encouraging existing dentists to increase their NHS commitments, which is wonderful; by encouraging those who have had a career break to return to dentistry, even better; and by overseas recruitment.
	As to the career break possibilities, it cost £139,021 to fund the Returning to Dentistry campaign, and by the end of the campaign the call centre had received only 288 calls, which was roughly a cost of £482 a call. Although there is no collection of information on the numbers of people who had returned to dentistry as a result of the campaign, an announcement was made in the House of Commons on 9 February this year (Hansard col. 1616W) that 65 dentists—37 whole-time equivalents—had returned since April 2004. So it is looking a little expensive and possibly the campaign has not been successful enough. To echo the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, has it really increased availability?
	Add to that concerns that the costs of recruiting overseas dentists are unknown, that primary care trusts may well have to pick up the extra costs of induction training and relocation for individual Polish dentists, and that 10 per cent of posts in the community dental services, which tend to treat the most vulnerable people, are vacant, it is hard to see how NHS dentistry will be available to all by October this year or even April next year.
	But we do have some dentists in the UK who would love to work in the NHS. This is a subject close to my heart. Take, for instance, the case of Sharif Gasmi, a 35 year-old dentist from Algeria who is an asylum seeker in Glasgow. She was featured in the Independent newspaper on 5 March this year when her husband argued:
	"We are not here for the benefits. We want to work and be active people . . . Everyone talks of the shortage of dentists and doctors in Scotland. We have a dentist sitting here who is not allowed to work".
	We know that three-quarters of Scotland's 6,000 asylum seekers and 4,000 refugees have qualifications. Why are we not using them properly? When the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, replied to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, on 23 February this year, asking how the Government were going to encourage more dentist asylum seekers and refugees to take up practice, she replied that there were 122 refugee and asylum seeker dentists on the database maintained by the Refugee Council and the British Dental Association and that 30 of them had been successful in passing the language test, 20 had passed the first part of the international qualifying examination, 11 the second part and three had become eligible to practice.
	The noble Baroness also said that the Government have worked with the General Dental Council to reduce the backlog of non-EU dentists waiting to take the international qualifying examination and the Government are much to be congratulated on that. But we still need to do a great deal more to encourage, train, facilitate and generally support asylum-seeking and refugee dentists if we want to provide a full NHS service. One thing we can be certain of is that asylum-seeking and refugee dentists will work in the NHS, not in the private sector.
	Perhaps I may make two final points. First, how will the Government clarify dental charges to the public under a new scheme? We know that the public are confused and that they want to know what is free and what they have to pay for. Secondly, will the Government support the Liberal Democrat policy and move towards free dental checks for everyone under the new system in order that the prevention theme of the new way of thinking about dentistry, welcomed by the British Dental Association and apparently central to the Government's thinking, can be achieved? Will they heed the National Audit Office's concerns about oral health and, particularly, its association with social deprivation and look hard at getting primary care trusts to offer real incentives to dentists to work in socially deprived areas? It was very good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Chan, how some of that is working in Birkenhead and Wallasey.
	After a month in which the newspapers seem to have focused entirely on the Which? report showing that the six year-old Government promise to improve access has gone largely unfulfilled, the very least that the Government should do is listen to the dentists' wish to focus on prevention and oral health, go for free dental checks for all, allow asylum seeking and refugee dentists to work rather more easily by supporting them through the registration system better and faster, and think hard about how to deal with workforce capacity in dental schools, as well as on the high street.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am not sure that I am going to be able to act as Moses, but I certainly congratulate the noble Baroness on raising this important topic this evening. I thank her for all that she has done over the years and for the contribution that she has made to NHS dentistry. I am sorry that she had a rather disappointing experience as a mystery shopper, but if she were to give me the details, I would be happy to make some inquiries and give her some sort of explanation.
	I shall respond to the points that have been made in the debate by setting out the Government's approach and the action that they are taking. Before I do so, I have to respond with great gentleness to some of the remarks that were made opposite and set out the position that the Government inherited.
	A poorly constructed contract for dentists was introduced in 1990, resulting in unpredicted and unsustainable expenditure. The response was a 7 per cent cut in fees to dentists in 1992. That prompted many dentists to switch to private dentistry and change their styles of work. It is not just me who is saying that. We know from the Office of Fair Trading and from private market research that, following those disastrous changes, private dentistry doubled and NHS dental services declined dramatically. To compound matters, two dental schools were closed in 1992, reducing the number of dentists being trained by 10 per cent. That is the mountain that we have to climb. I am not making a cheap political point. That is the position that has had to be dealt with.
	We are trying to undertake the biggest reform of dental care under the NHS since the service began in 1948. We are absolutely resolute in our determination to rebuild NHS dentistry, to deliver better access to NHS dental care and to improve the oral health of the country. We need to work away at the problem with increased funding; by recruiting and training more dentists; and by using new contracting systems and new models of service delivery.
	We have committed an unprecedented level of funding for dentistry. For this financial year, 2005–06, funding for NHS dentistry in England is set to increase by over 19 per cent in real terms compared with spending in 2003–04, resulting in an extra cash spend of more than £250 million over the two-year period. That is more than the rate of increase for the NHS as a whole, which has also been pretty enormous over that period.
	In July last year, John Reid announced that for England the equivalent of 1,000 dentists would be recruited by October 2005, including those dentists from overseas. Alongside this, we undertook to fund 170 extra undergraduate dental training places in England from October 2005—a 25 per cent increase—supported by capital investment of £80 million over four years. The good news is that all those extra training places are likely to be filled. People want to study dentistry at university, and we have the capacity to run those extra places—although I recognise that there are issues about dental academics. Opening, rather than closing, dental schools, is a more certain way of addressing access to NHS dentists.
	In the mean time, we have recruited more than 480 dentists, domestically and from abroad. In addition, the NHS is itself "buying back" more time from existing local dentists. These actions were designed both to improve the medium-term and longer-term supply of dentists for the NHS. We have achieved a huge amount in less than a year since those targets were announced and, as a consequence, access to dentistry has started to improve, now and for the future.
	As I said, we have made very good progress towards recruiting 1,000 whole-time equivalent dentists. Targets are important—despite what some people say—but what local people want to see is improved access to services. One hundred and thirteen dentists from Poland have started work in England since January in some of the hardest pressed areas—Cornwall, Shropshire, Cumbria and north Yorkshire. In Cornwall, 18 Polish dentists started work in January, in small towns where there had not been a dentist—let alone an NHS dentist—for some years. The Isle of Wight had severe problems with access to emergency treatment, so two Polish dentists work in the dental access centre there, providing easy access to NHS dentistry for people who need immediate treatment. We plan to recruit a similar number between now and the end of October, to make in total 230 Polish dentists recruited by the end of October. We are also recruiting in other European countries, including Spain and Germany. In April, seven Spanish dentists started work in Lincolnshire and five German dentists started work in Blackburn. We anticipate that more will be in practice by October 2005.
	We are paying attention to other members of the dental team, too. Any enduring solution to access to NHS dentistry will not be solved by just recruiting more dentists. To that end, a new dental school for profession complementary to dentistry opened in Portsmouth last September, providing 48 places each year for therapists and nurses. I commend that development to extend the skills and responsibilities of all members of the dental team. To reflect those new responsibilities, later this year we shall make regulations which provide for the General Dental Council to register dental nurses and dental technicians. That will ensure that no one will be able use these titles unless they have had appropriate training and experience.
	We have speeded up the process for people waiting to take the International Qualifying Exam—IQE—which enables dentists from non-EU countries to practise in England. The GDC previously had a two-year waiting list for the exams, with no details of exam dates published in advance. The Department of Health provided a subsidy to increase the sittings of IQE to address these problems. As a result of the department's interest, the GDC has now reduced the time to take all parts of the exam to 12 months and published a forward calendar of exams for 2005–06. More than 100 dentists who registered via IQE have subsequently taken up NHS contracts—another significant contribution to improving access to NHS dentistry.
	I am glad that the GDC has responded favourably to the department's support for IQE, and I expect the GDC's positive approach to continue as the Government carry out their review of the regulatory bodies. I look forward to the GDC's review of IQE over the next year and its implementation from April 2007.
	On the domestic front, the NHS locally has been recruiting dentists. The "Keeping in Touch" scheme has supported dentists back to practise after a career break. The scheme has yielded almost 60 whole time equivalent dentists to date, which represents about twice that number of dentists, mainly women, who have been helped back to work, often after a career break.
	This has all been achieved by bringing dentistry centre stage into the performance management arrangements for the NHS. In addition, to ensure new recruits are offered posts in places where there is most need for NHS dentists, the department has established a central vacancy system. This provides candidates with extensive information about vacancies and ensures local NHS organisations locally fully report their vacancies to the department.
	As well as improving access to dentistry for patients, reforms have begun to modernise the dental profession for the 21st century via a new contract for dentists—to which a number of noble Lords have drawn attention—making it possible for them to spend more time with patients and encourage preventive care. Personal dental services (PDS) contracts between primary care trusts and individual dental practices have shown that they carry benefits for patients and dentists alike.
	The noble Lord, Lord Chan, eloquently described the Wirral PDS experience and changes. On the Wirral, one of our leading PDS sites, in the whole of Cheshire and Merseyside SHA area, almost two-thirds of the dentists are now in PDS, enjoying, as the noble Lord described, all the benefits of changes in approach and all the benefits that that brings for their patients.
	Other dentists are already taking up this new way of working because it removes them from a treatment and paperwork treadmill. Patients are benefiting from a more preventive approach and improved access. Over 5,800 dentists in 2,100 dental practices have now opted to work under the new arrangements. That represents more than 25 per cent of dentists. It is vital that we now devise a sensible way of monitoring PDS that captures all the benefits of new ways of working, both for dentists and patients.
	We have introduced, as noble Lords know, legislation to place dentistry alongside the other key primary care services so that it can become locally based and managed by primary care trusts. The new arrangements for local commissioning, managed by PCTs, will start next year, and all dentists working in the NHS will be working under the new arrangements so that the benefits they bring to both dentists and patients will become apparent. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, said, some PCTs may take a little more time to improve their commissioning than others; but we are going in the right direction. Alongside this, we intend to launch a consultation on the draft regulations for a new and simpler system of patient charges during the summer. I think that that is the answer to a point made by noble Lords on this issue.
	We have also set up a specialist support team to improve access to dentistry in 31 particularly hard-pressed areas. This initiative has supported international recruitment and linked local developments with dentists recruited by the department from abroad.
	I am afraid that, in the time available, I shall not be able to go over and answer all the questions that have been raised, especially those from the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who always makes an invaluable contribution in this area. I am grateful for the support he has given. I am sorry that he has been diverted from his jazz performances to come along here this evening.
	In conclusion, I believe that, taken together, our actions to restore and improve NHS dentistry form an impressive and comprehensive programme. The changes we have set in train will produce good and demonstrable progress. We have 20 per cent or so more dentists practising today than in 1997. But we are not complacent and we think that more can be done. We are very well aware that the scope and complexity of this major enterprise require careful management—as the National Audit Office highlighted in its report on dentistry last year.
	So the fundamental review promised in our manifesto will reflect the reform already under way with the personal dental services and the local commissioning of services. It is important that access and oral health, including fluoridation, are at the heart of the agenda. Patients need to be able to make informed choices about the dental treatment they require, as the Office of Fair Trading made clear in its report last year. We will listen to what patients say, as we will in the forthcoming White Paper on out of hospital services. I hope that we will build on the current reforms to improve oral health and to provide good access to NHS dentistry for all those who require it.